Aestheticism
According to The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms Aestheticism is a movement that started in Europe in the second half of the 19th century.
Supporters of this movement insist that there is a separation of art from morality. Art needs no moral to have value. Art for Art's Sake or L'art pour l'art
In literature--it was about praising the form with little authorial presence.
Aestheticism is shown through this character--Cyril from Wilde's The Decay of Lying (1889):
- Art never expresses anything but itself. It has an independent life, just as Thought has, and develops purely on its own lines. It is not necessarily realistic in its age of realism, nor spiritual in an age of faith. So far from being the creation of its own time, it is usually in direct opposition to it, and the only history that it preserves for us is the history of its own progress.
This is a very brief explanation as to what this movement meant and just a glimmer as to Wilde's involvement. In looking at this description, how does this change the way you see The Picture of Dorian Gray? Can a piece of Artwork exist without any moral, social, or political value? Think about your speeches and the art pieces you incorporated when making your argument.
According to Encyclopedia Brittanica, aestheticism was a "late 19th-century European arts movement which centered on the doctrine that art exists for the sake of its beauty alone, and that it need serve no political, didactic, or other purpose". I do not wholly agree with the ideals of this movement. Art is a means of expression. Sometimes a piece of artwork may reflect society, while in other cases it can highlight the struggle the artist is facing. To say that artwork simply 'exists' is foolish. Take, for example, Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre. Widely published in newspapers throughout the colonies, this single piece of artwork marked a turning point in the New World. The artists representation of an event that had taken place was enough to fuel the fire of social unrest. While not every piece of artwork has been as important, there is still value associated with every piece of artwork. While the central intent of artwork does not need to be to serve a "political, didactic, or other purpose," it is easy to see that every piece does this in some regard. In class, we looked at many different mediums of artwork (painting, drawings, advertisements, video, literature, etc.). Each group made the argument that these had had some social impact. While the influence of some far surpassed others, it would be difficult find an example that has simply 'existed'. If nothing else, artwork is a means of expression that can allow the artist to be better understood. This, in itself, is a form of social change.
ReplyDeleteThis movement, in which Wilde sought continual involvement, is evident in The Picture of Dorian Gary. The painting of Gray did not directly impact society. After all, it was locked in room that only Gray had the key to. But the painting had an important impact on Gray himself. Knowing that the painting would reflect the all of his actions and that his reputation would remain untarnished, Gray was able to push the boundaries of society. When he began to kill members of his community, the moral and political implications of the artwork became clear. While the artwork itself was not seen by a single other person, the change it produced within Gray was multiplied to the rest of society. Some may argue that Gray acted independently, but the change that readers see from the time he received the painting to is death is important. It becomes clear that the artwork was what drove the change in Gray's life.
The social impact of some artwork cannot be denied. Some, however, may argue that not every piece of art has an effect on society. However, every piece helps to communicate the views of the artists and therefore creates a small change in their immediate communities.
- Ryan M. 2
Contrary to the Aestheticism movement, I do not believe that art can stand alone and not have any moral value. I believe that what gives art its value is the meaning that people look for behind various art forms. Reading about the aestheticism movement showed me the importance of meaning and value in behind art. It should me that analyzing art is what gives it value. The aestheticism movement affected the way I view The Picture of Dorian Gray by making me see more value in the transitioning picture of Dorian Gray. If the artwork of Dorian Gray was simply a photo that gradually became uglier, it would have no value and would be disregarded by society. But, when the artwork is analyzed in regard to Dorian’s actions, the artwork has a lot of value. The artwork shows the transition of Dorian Gray’s true character and personality, although it appears that Dorian doesn’t change because of his exterior physique. The artwork shows that Dorian isn’t who everyone perceives he is. In The Picture of Dorian Gray, the artwork had moral value because it showed that all of the bad deeds that Dorian Gray committed actually made him ugly and disgusting. The artwork showed that immoral acts negatively affect and make you a different person. I do not believe that a piece of artwork can exist without any moral, social, or political value. I believe truly good artwork has to have some sort of value to it because that is what gives the artwork meaning and allows individuals to connect with the artwork. If a piece of artwork has no meaning or value to it, then it is not regarded very highly by society.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the ideas of Aestheticism, I couldn’t disagree more with the idea. I believe that any piece of art, whether it’s a painting, sculpture, or mosaic, always has a backstory. These backstories can depict glorious occasions, or frightful moments. The story is completely up to the illustrator, which makes the study of art interesting and unique. When the idea of Aestheticism is brought up, I feel that it is compressing our ideas as a society. All great art pieces come from an idea, and it that idea which gets others to think and question society. Without this inquisitive characteristic, we are not able to give art the power it deserves.
ReplyDeleteThe Aestheticism movement has given me a new prospective on the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. From looking at the excerpt, the picture in the novel has an independent life and develops on it own. The painting only affects Dorian’s life directly, which is a catalyst to the other event that happen in the novel. The painting has many moral values due to the changes Dorian goes through and due to them, represents a negative change.
Overall, I feel that every art piece needs to have meaning. Without this meaning, society does not benefit from the form of art. Only when the time and effort has been put in and the artwork demonstrates solid morals and meaning will society benefit.
Wasylko, g 7/8th
I rebel against the idea that art exists separate from culture and morality. When we read a book or examine a painting, we have to consider the life of the person behind it. We need to know historical context. We need to know the artist’s beliefs in terms of religion, politics, and philosophy. Without that lens, we’re neglecting an entire world of material that could contribute to our understanding. We have to ask: what is the artwork saying about the world it came from? Art is a reflection of both the individual mind and the collective society that produces it. It’s a result of culture, history, and moral values. Art is not a cause – it’s an effect.
ReplyDeleteWhenever Dorian Gray claimed that “life was his art,” I got frustrated. To me, it sounded like an elaborate excuse for contributing nothing to the world. You can’t sit in an empty room breathing your own stale air for a lifetime and call it art. You have to channel your life and your energy into something meaningful. To me, this is why Dorian Gray became as corrupt and evil as he did – because he was told that he was perfection incarnate, that his mere existence bettered the world. In reality, Dorian Gray didn’t offer anything new to anyone. He existed for his own sake, and that is the source from which all his wickedness stemmed.
To live an artistic life, we have to find our art form – and “art” can stretch its definition in this context. Of course painting and poetry-writing are art forms, but so is quantum physics. Cultivating a garden is an art form. Teaching is an art form. Loving other people is an art form. As long as we are doing something meaningful and doing it well, we are enhancing the world around us. There are so many different ways we can bring art into our lives. We don’t get to excuse ourselves from art because we “live” and that’s somehow “enough.”
I dislike the idea that we should praise literature with little authorial presence. In examining Dostoyevsky’s work especially, it’s important to know his background and how his life experiences played into his writing. That adds texture and depth to our understanding of his books and the general ideas he was trying to convey. It’s unfair to snip away the author and discredit their presence in a novel. They are, after all, the eyes, ears, and voice of the artwork itself. When their idea came into the world, it trickled down through a filter of personal experiences, values, and beliefs. We must always consider this filter when we approach a piece of art.
This isn’t to say that art can’t have aesthetic value. Of course we can observe that a painting is beautiful – but we can’t stop there. Why is the painting beautiful to us? What are our perceptions of beauty? What colors and forms do we consider better than others, and what does this say about our society’s values? To say that art is purely aesthetic is to simplify its complexities and, essentially, to strip it of its meaning.
Federico Fellinio claimed,"All art is autobiographical. The pearl is the oyster's autobiography." Consciously or unconsciously, we channel ourselves into everything we create. No piece of art in this world is untainted by humanity. We are the hands that molded the clay, that dipped the brush, that wielded the pen. When we divorce the artist from their art, we take away the body – the flesh and lifeblood that sweated over it and worked it into reality. Art has life because we breathe life into it. Without the warmth of human presence, it’s cold and empty.
Keller N 7/8
Aestheticism is quite easy to immediately toss aside and reject. We were raised on language arts lectures about the meanings of every subtlety in every piece of art. Take for example, Music Mondays. We write about what we think a song is trying to say, or at the very least, what it means to us. But it is quite troubling to me, especially when we did our speeches, to assume that every piece of art has a meaning. When my group researched the song “Little Talks” by Of Monsters and Men we had found a statement from the band saying that the song was simply about nothing, yet we were obliged to search between the lines for our own meaning (which, by the way, was a stretch for us...). To assume all artwork has meaning is preposterous. However, to assume no artwork has meaning is equally as preposterous.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading The Picture of Dorian Gray I found myself often looking back at
the preface. Wilde literally wrote “all art is quite useless,” but then focused his novel on a piece of art. I found myself dumbfounded. What was the painting purpose then, if not for guiding Dorian Gray? Honestly, I am still confused by the paradox Wilde instills in his writing. Is it because art is useless that we find ourselves desperately searching for a meaning? Wilde’s nihilistic view on art is troublesome, to say the least.
Ultimately, I am confused about aestheticism. While personally I feel as though not every piece I have created has meaning, I do know that some things I have written do have moral, political, or social implications. I understand the aesthetic thought process, but I do not understand Wilde’s approach with his contradictory preface.
-Kett J 2
The word aestheticism reminds me of a picture that I saw on the internet a while ago: a hand squeezing a tube of toothpaste onto an orange in front of an entirely white background. The comments posted below the picture all showed a general lack of understanding of what aestheticism is. It is the separation of art and morality. The lack of morality, the common knowledge that toothpaste and oranges do mix, allows the picture I described above to be in the same genre as the Picture of Dorian Gray. In the novella, Dorian Gray essentially transfers his soul to a portrait allowing him to stay young and keep his youthful views. The story is moral-less. By allowing an inanimate object to take his soul, he is completely moral-less, and through out the text, everything that he does is moral-less as well. The reader can simply take the book as it is, a man, who stays young both physically and mentally and acts upon his own wishes. With that point of view the novel completely changes. What is bad to one person may not be to another. Instead Dorian's actions become actions and his death become death. His story serves no other purpose than to just tell a tale. What we recognize as bad moral choices are just choices. They just happen, and just as the toothpaste was put onto the orange there is no rhyme or reason, they just are. Aestheticism allows us to view the Picture of Dorian Gray completely separate from how we were taught to think of stories. It allows us to take pleasure in what the art form is- a story or a picture.
ReplyDeleteI think that aestheticism exists and has the right to exist some pieces of art are just art. I personally do not think that the Picture of Dorian Gray belongs in the aesthetic movement as there is so much depth, symbolism, and hidden commentary's in the story. I cannot separate those from the story to see what the aesthetic would see.
-Supina, R 2
The idea that art can exist without moral, social, or political value is misguided. An artist can make art for the sole purpose of creation. However, viewers of that art piece may see the art as having value politically, socially, or morally. For example, take Dorian Gray in "The Picture of Dorian Gray." This young, aristocratic man has the world at his fingertips. Yet, he values himself at the basic level of his appearance. Dorian is, for all intensive purposes, a piece of art. The decay of his soul is projected upon Basil’s painting of him and the undying face of the portrait is projected back. Though Dorian is a piece of art, this does not mean his actions and life have no social, political, or moral meaning. Sybil kills herself as a result of Dorian’s rejection of her, proving that Dorian’s actions have tangible moral results, or “value”. Dorian’s value politically and socially is immeasurable. He is the talk of the town; his parties are infamous, and his circles of friends include some of the most influential people in London. Being an aristocrat, it can be safely assumed that his political value is great, too. Dorian is an example of ‘art’ that has value in all the three areas in question. Even if art is made “L'art pour l'ar”, this does not mean that it cannot have value. One viewer may think that a specific piece has no value, while another viewer might just think that same piece is divine. The worth of all things is subjective, just as our personal values and moral standards are. So all who view a piece will judge its value in relation to the principles they have. So then logically it can be concluded that art cannot have a standard value (at least morally, socially, and politically) because that value will change from person to person.
ReplyDeleteBruggeman, Jacob 7/8th
This theory only changes how I think Wilde thought of the work, not my personal beliefs. I can see now that Wilde may have written Dorian Gray as a denouncing of moralized art. He was trying to portray art as the opposite of what he believed it was, as representing the morals of a man and of society, so that the audience could see how stupid that it was and understand his way of thinking. He uses Basil, arguably the most shallow and human character in the story, and his work to showcase the dual ideas: “An artist should create beautiful things, but should put nothing of his own life into them. We live in an age when men treat art as if it were meant to be a form of autobiography. We have lost the abstract sense of beauty” (1,21). Yet, in the same chapter and through the rest of the story, Basil is convinced he put himself into Dorian’s painting, and obvious devastating consequences occur. After having planted the above idea in the readers minds, Wilde uses the rest of the novel to display the dangers of giving art moral and social value.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can see what the author meant to do now, it doesn’t change my feelings about art and literature at all. I believe it is impossible to create something, whatever from it may take, without leaving a little bit of you behind. It’s a bit like having a pet. The pet inherently has its own self and its own personality, but what exactly happens to that personality depends on how you treat it. Because of that, you’ve left a bit of yourself in that animal. I can always pick out the bits of myself in my writing, as I’m sure others of you have been able to do. Art can’t exist just for it’s own sake, because there will always be one person who reads it or looks and listens to it and will find a moral, or the reason that piece exists. That is the reason art exists: to transmit the ideas of the person who created it to anyone willing to look for them. Without this, no one would care about the things we have created at all. Even worse: since writing can be considered a form of art, it would have no value; without this form of communication mankind would still be living in caves and stabbing each other with spears today. Chew on that for awhile, aesthetists.
Maslach, K 2
As someone who is heavily involved in art, I can definitely understand where the idea of aestheticism comes from. Although, overall, I think art is there to have meaning, sometimes it is simply art, and meaning is then given to it by those who view it. Such is the phrase, "art is in the eye of the beholder."
ReplyDeleteOriginally, in The Picture of Dorian Gray, the painting Basil did of Dorian was just a painting, void of meaning or moral. However, once given to Dorian, it acquired it's own sort of purpose: to take on the consequences of Dorian's actions. After reading about the aestheticism movement, I have a new perspective on the meaning of this. If, perhaps, Oscar Wilde had meant this book to be a part of the aestheticism movement, I believe it could be a comment on how society changes the perceptions of art. If the artist, Basil in this case, did not intend a meaning unto their art, it will eventually be given it's own meaning through the various actions of those who view it. In the novel, the only one who ever truly saw the art was Dorian himself. When the art began to age, he decided it meant that the painting was there to reflect his sins so he did not have to. Dorian was the one that gave it this purpose- not Basil, showing that the meaning is not given by those who create art, but rather those who receive it.
Avery, A. 2.
For me personally after reading the ideas about aestheticism it did not really change how I viewed “The Picture of Dorian Gray” as a whole but I did have a few realizations about the actual painting within the novel. At first I thought that the painting was in fact just a form of art without any moral value. However, throughout the novel Dorian Gray is the one that adds the moral value to the piece. He puts the moral value into the painting by making the picture the representation of his soul. When the picture, or his soul, whichever he preferred to think about it as, started to become tarnished it only occurred when his morals and actions became tarnished. The moral value of the painting was the moral value of his soul and his actions. Going away from Dorian Gray and to answer the other question of this blogs prompt I am going to go against the grain and say that yes, I personally think a piece of art can stand without any social, moral, or political value. Do most pieces? No. But can they? I personally think that they can.
ReplyDeleteBunting, A 2nd
Personally, I do not completely agree with the Aesthetic movement. I believe that art cannot stand alone. Art reflects not only itself, but the entire world around it, as well.
ReplyDeleteEarlier in the year when our class held debates, my side had to argue that Oscar Wilde was worthy of literary merit. During this debate, I learned a little bit about Aestheticism and Wilde’s involvement in it, but never really connected it to “The Picture of Dorian Gray.” After reading this prompt, however, a few things clicked in my mind. In the excerpt from “The Decay of Lying,” Wilde states that: “Art never expresses anything but itself” (Wilde). However, I firmly disagree with this statement. “The Picture of Dorian Gray” is a perfect example of how art expresses more than just itself. In this novel, Basil’s portrait of Dorian expressed the consequences of wrong-doing. Dorian adored the portrait of himself; he admired his own good looks and he was overjoyed that Basil admired his good looks as well. The painting, which he held so dearly to his heart, reflected every bad deed he committed. Each time Dorian committed a crime, the painting grew uglier and uglier, just as his heart did. This is an example of how art does not just express itself. Again quoting the excerpt from “The Decay of Lying,” it has been argued that: “[Art] is not necessarily realistic in its age of realism,” (Wilde). However, this could be proven incorrect as well. The portrait of Dorian reflected the realism of Dorian’s situation better than he did so himself. Dorian refused to accept that he could ever lose his good looks, so the evolution of his portrait frightened him. Dorian was unrealistic in this novel because he did not accept the consequences that came with his wrong doings. His portrait, however, did exactly that. It perfectly reflected the realism of the entire situation. His portrait acted as the physical depiction of him growing uglier, whereas Dorian hid his terrifying transformation in order to remain beautiful. This shows that art is in fact realistic in its age of realism.
Cruse S, 2
The thought that art can exist without moral, social, or political value is very ill advised and seems far-fetched. When created, any and all pieces of art have some value behind them, whether it is a social or political view towards society, or just a view that the artist has. Regardless of the intentions of the artist, any specific work of art has different meanings according to its viewers, thus, placing moral, social, or political value upon that piece. Art without meaning is not art at all; without meaning, it is simply a creation, not art. If there is no meaning behind creation, there is no way for viewers to understand the purpose of the artist’s work. Art should not exist as just a creation, but as a work of magnificence and depth.
ReplyDeleteIn Oscar Wilde’s “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, the protagonist Dorian Gray is viewed as a piece of art; however, what about him makes him art? Is it his striking outer beauty, or his ability to practically manipulate anyone to get what he wants? These things are only surface-deep. What does he contribute to the world? A person cannot be a work of art unless they obtain complexity underneath their exterior and bring something to the world that gives value to beliefs and life itself. In the novel, the picture of Dorian Gray continuously changes, growing fouler and more unattractive with his unceasing youth. This is a prime example of art having meaning. This portrait of Gray is art: it has meaning, and though it may not be beautiful, its ability to stir the minds of both the characters in the novel and the reader causes it to be art. Dorian himself, however, is far from art. It is ironic because throughout the novel, Dorian looks at himself as art, after all, why else would he wish for his youthful beauty to be everlasting? What he does not realize is that it is the painting of him that is the true art in his life. He believes that as his face in the painting grows older, it begins to taunt him and it is an absolute disgrace to who he is. Nonetheless, the painting’s ability to change and stir thoughts makes it art, as opposed to Dorian’s statically horrible traits.
The impact that moralistic, social, and political ideas have on art can never be disclaimed, for art cannot exist without these meanings. Art is no creation; art is life. Life has meaning created by those who endure it. So just like life, the meaning humanity gives art is what actually makes it art.
Shaniuk, B 7/8
An artist can create a piece of art without the intention of making some sort of social or political point. Though that is a rare happening, and that art often comes with an underlying motive on the part of the artist, it is possible to create something just for the sake of pure expression and creation. Art is often interpreted by the viewer to have an underlying or explicit meaning even if the artist had no motive. Though, often in the case of the speeches we made in class, we brought in pieces that had a specific meaning related to that of the speeches we were giving. But yes, art can exist without some kind of moral, social, or political value. For example, look at instrumental music; bands like Chon or Scale the Summit are not trying to make a political statement with their music, but it is unquestionably art. Take it back further in time even; look at many composers, such as Scriabin or Mozart or what have you; they make art, without a doubt, but do it solely for the beauty and joy of creation. It is brainless to think that artwork can’t exist without some arbitrary “deep” value.
ReplyDeleteNow, looking at this theory of aestheticism in reference to Dorian Gray, it is definitely evident in the book and changes my opinion of Gray. It sheds light on his actions and his endless chasing of pleasures; the things he does have no moral value, but that doesn’t mean that this book isn’t art, and in his endless chasing of things with no moral value he, in a way, exemplifies the idea of aestheticism.
Crow 7/8
The Picture of Dorian Gray was created just in admiration to a man, and then after some time and events occured, the painting gained social value. It frightened Dorian because he was seeing how ugly of a soul he was changing into. A piece of artwork can exist without moral, social, or political value. This though is from the creators perspective. The viewer however, interprets each creation in his or her own way. When we did our speeches on gender roles in art, we had to pick pieces that expressed our views towards the topic. We could have found any artwork and made it express moral value, even if it was not the intention of the artist. It is all from perspective. Many musicians create music without having it stand for something. Take Dubstep for example. Value does not exist within random noise, except to bring movement to the bones of the dancer. Artwork is created from the artist to express there emotions, or sometimes when they are merely just bored. How we see each piece, makes it gain value in our own personal way.
ReplyDeleteAsturi V 7/8
Art has been used to spread propaganda, influence love and hate, and spread messages through mere pictures, pitches, and punctuation. It is a powerful tool when it comes to moral, social, or political situations and can teach its audience a lesson. In many cases, it has an underlying meaning the artist is trying to express, but sometimes art is not meant to make a point. Art is sometimes made for fun, beauty, or just because the artist was interested in creating a new piece. In The Picture of Dorian Gray, Wilde shows a portrait that bears all of the sins and affects of age Dorian Gray should experience. This is not what the artist, Basil Hallward intended. He painted Gray because he wanted to capture the youth and beauty of the man that stood before him. He wanted his masterpiece to exist as art and nothing more. It was Dorian who wished to remain youthful and beautiful and thus caused the painting to show the effects of his behavior. The artwork that was meant to only be observed became a moral message that carried on the rest of the story. This makes me believe that people will force a point on artwork, making it mean something when the intention of the piece was just to exist as art. The most interesting thing about art is that it speaks to each spectator differently. To one person it may have meaning and affect them greatly while another gazes on and solely observes. That is the beauty of art. It can be up for interpretation.
ReplyDeleteHornung, A. 7/8
I do not, whatsoever, believe in aestheticism. In my mind, in order for a piece of artwork to survive and be significant to a culture, societal influences need to be incorporated into it. Through putting in these societal influences, a piece of artwork means something to the artist and is therefore recognized as a piece of art in its surrounding culture. In our speech pertaining to gender roles in society, a lot of modern movies were used as examples. I can’t think of one example that we used that did not incorporate societal influences; the topic itself, “gender roles in art” shows that society has influenced every aspect of art. In the 21st century there are more women roles, whether or not they are significant to the plot they still show a digression from the previous “stay at home mom” roles that were common in the 1950s. This itself shows how, as societal values change and so does the art world because artists bring with them what they know to be familiar in their everyday life.
ReplyDeleteIn The Picture of Dorian Gray, a piece of art, and Dorian Gray’s vanity, bring about his destruction. I cannot comprehend how the book would have progressed if the artwork had no social, moral or political values attached with it. I suppose if the artwork meant nothing to the artist because it developed on its own terms and was not representative of how the artist felt, Dorian Gray would have tossed the artwork into the corner somewhere and never would have looked at it again. The entire plot, narcissism being the fault of Dorian Gray, revolves around the moral implications that the painting has brought the subject. These morals were expressed when Basil Hallward was painting the piece of art because Basil talked about how young and gorgeous Dorian Gray was. Dorian Gray represented someone who had all the beauty, but no brains and was therefore a naive character all the way through the novel. These morals were expressed in the painting and in the book itself by Oscar Wilde.
Overall, moral, social and political values have to be represented in a piece of artwork in order for the reader/viewer to feel anything significant towards it.
-Bolger, J. 2
For me, I believe that we as an audience manipulate works to tell us what we them want us to tell us. For instance, I was walking in an art museum once with my boyfriend at the time, and we came upon a painting of a bunch of gray figures (people) being attacked by these men in white coats and there were like these tissue-looking things grabbing people and everything was black and white, except for these tissues. I apologize; for the life of me, I cannot remember what it was called. But anyway, I looked at it and explained how it symbolized the world’s fear of medicine. I saw the men in white depicting doctors and healthcare workers. The red tissues symbolizing disease and the blood of hospitals, and the people being attacked were citizens being absorbed the system. I stated the painting was the artist’s expression of how he views healthcare.
ReplyDeleteMy boyfriend looked at me, looked at the painting, then looked back at me, and then raised one of his eyebrows. He said the painting is clearly a depiction of Christians trying to convert natives into Christianity. He explained the tissues showed the life being sucked out of people, the people in white being priests or holy folk, and the grey people being the indigent people.
Upon reading the beautifully crafted paragraph on the wall, we found out that neither one of us was right. The painting was actually about Ivan the Terrible and how he took the lives of many people to succeed in his expansion. The tissue symbolizes bloodshed and his throbbing need for victory. Needless to say, we both felt like idiots. We had an argument in the middle of the Cleveland Museum of Art, and some guard did not refrain from laughing hysterically at both of us. However, this is what I believe happens. I believe authors, artists, anyone who manipulates medium in some type of way, has a plan. They see things their way, and then through time, we see things how we want to see them. We interpret art in our own way; we see things in ways that apply to us, and that is what makes a good piece. Something is truly timeless when you can put it in anytime and someone, somewhere can still find some kind of relevance, some kind of meaning, even if that was not the original intention.
This is what I think is the case with The Picture of Dorian Gray and the other novels and sources we looked at this year. I believe that art does not have to have a point; it does not have to be created with some predetermined value. I honestly believe someone could hang a blank sheet of paper on the wall and everyone is going to interpret it as something. As a matter of fact, there is a piece of white paper on the wall at the CMA, second floor, in the hallway, no joke. People talk about its meaning all the time.
I think a lot of works are created with design and intention. I think books have a purpose. But I find more often than not the purpose is changed into something else. Hearing Wilde make a claim like this, just kind of reinsures the fact that art is interpretation; even if it is not necessarily created that way. Also, when thinking of our speeches, I think we choose works that allowed us to draw our own conclusions, even if those were not the conclusions of the artist. But that is what makes art rich. It allows us to find our own meaning, so in retrospect; it will always have some value, even if it was designed to have none.
Megan Lear
The idea of aestheticism is one that shows the unpopular opinion of many readers. I know personally, I think any book, song, movie, play or piece of art that has some sort of social commentary is one that I seem to relate to more, or maybe just understand better. In The Picture Of Dorian Gray the painting obviously is to show the true ugliness that is inside Dorian, and the book itself shows the reader that ugly actions create an ugly person. Knowing that so much art is created with social, moral and political value it might be hard to believe that art can be created without, but I think it can. Art does not need a reason to exist. Art is its own being in a way, though it is amazing and moving when art has morals, it can still be amazing when it does not. Art is its own being, sometimes only created for the artist to have some sort of creative outlet, without the need for morals or reason. Although art is created to change ideas, rally the people, and move mountains, it can and is created many times only to entertain. Art is its own being and needs no moral to exist.
ReplyDeleteCali Parey 7/8
We have learned that in literature a Blue wall can have deeper meaning and can help enhance the structure of the text but other times a blue wall can simply just be that: a blue wall. Art is similar in the sense that it can depict a moral, social, political, or any other important matter. But just the same, sometimes a work of art is solely what it depicts: whether it be nature or fruit or even a person. All art work has meaning but it does not have to be about moral, social, or political matter to have value.
ReplyDeleteIn The Picture of Dorian Gray Basil's painting expressed beauty and it also overflowed with his own persona and style. However, when given to Dorian Gray it acquired a new meaning: youth and remorse. In looking at the description above, my perspective of the book has changed in that I understand that every person will find a different meaning in a piece of art. To some it will have a deeper and more thorough significance while to others it may not. Regardless, that piece of work has value for both of them. We should all keep in mind that art has no definition and that its interpretations are limitless.
Galvan. E 2nd
Now that I have a better understanding of aestheticism with the description provided, I can see how this book can be purely for aesthetics, although, it is difficult. In the preface of The Picture of Dorian Gray, an extended statement about art is made. In this statement it says, “No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved“ (Wilde 3). This quote reflects aestheticism, as it emphasizes an artist’s intention to produce art only for its aesthetic purpose and nothing else. The statement then goes on to say, “Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital” (4). Knowing that art of aestheticism has no moral or lesson, the inevitable opinions of what that art means proves that art of the Aesthetic Movement is fulfilling its purpose. Readers will have different opinions and give evidence to prove their opinion, but there is no definite right or wrong answer to those opinions. This is aestheticism.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading The Picture of Dorian Gray, I conclude that a man can never escape his sin. This is what I took away from this book, but another reader could have a polar opposite opinion about this book. However, any reader who reads this book can agree that the imagery and description implemented in this piece emphasize the beauty of nature and fine details. Once again, this is aestheticism.
The reason why I find it difficult to view this book without any moral or didactic lesson is that I have been trained to always try to find a lesson from the books I read. Whenever I approach a book, I always consider the author’s personal life and the societal standards of the period to formulate my final conclusion of what the book wanted me to take from it. In the case of The Picture of Dorian Gray, Wilde only wanted his readers to enjoy the story’s plot, characters, and conflict. He did not embed a definite lesson in this story.
Considering the art I analyzed for the speech assignment, I am able to see the possibility of aestheticism in some of the works. One of the works, “Little Talks” by Of Monsters and Men, seems to be an aesthetic work. The lyrics of the song and the music video are both entertaining pieces, but they do not parallel in meaning. The lyrics seem to reflect a woman who is still dependent on her husband, even though he has died. The music video shows men depending on a powerful female character to keep them safe in a world of black and white. Specifically for the music video, I saw more emphasis on the aesthetics of the piece more than an actual lesson of the music video. The possibility of aestheticism in “Little Talks” is a reminder that the Aestheticism Movement while rare and without Oscar Wilde, still shows signs of existence today.
Srivastava R, 2
I personally do not believe that any form of art can truly exist without any moral, social, or political value. Even if an artist does not intend for or want his or her art to have any type of meaning does not mean that someone will not find any moral, social, or political value in their work. Oscar Wiled was a leader of the Aestheticism movement and he believed that art can solely exist “for art’s sake.” However, many readers, including most of our AP Literature class, were able to discover something new about the values and societal beliefs that were prevalent during the 1800s through the thoughts and actions of Wile’s characters. Unintentionally, many authors often interject their own values and society’s values into their art work. Art is a reflection of who the artist is and where the artist came from.
ReplyDeleteThe description does not change the way I see The Picture of Dorian Gray because I still feel as though both Dorian’s picture and the book as a whole are representative of nineteenth century society’s ideals and beliefs. In The Picture of Dorian Gray, the idea that art can exist without any meaning was illustrated in Basil’s picture of Dorian Gray. The picture was of nothing more than a beautiful boy, but as the story progressed and the picture negatively altered into a hideous reflection of Dorian Gray’s soul, readers see the impact that society has had on Dorian Gray. People like Lord Henry who based people’s worth on their physical appearance encouraged Dorian to harm others and himself. Dorian thought that as long as others did not see the effects of his evil deeds, he could do anything without any physical repercussions. His actions demonstrated people’s desires to rebel against the strict social and moral cod of the nineteenth century. Lord Henry constantly questions morality and advises others to do whatever gives them pleasure, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Therefore, The Picture of Dorian Gray, is influenced by Oscar Wilde’s personal beliefs about his society.
Art can never truly have no purpose in society. Art has evolved to reflect changes in society’s views and document important historical events and people. People can find meaning in any artwork if they look hard enough, so art can never exist just to exist in the eyes of all people.
Judele, C 2nd
Contrary to what the Aestheticism movement believes I do not think that art work can exist without some kind of moral, social, or political value. Growing up, we were taught that there is meaning behind everything (even if there isn’t) we analyze literature specifically looking for the meaning behind the authors words. This is why I think that it is very important to have meaning behind art because it makes it all the more powerful. Without having a strong meaning or belief shown through the artwork it loses not only meaning but something bigger to stand for.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading The Picture of Dorian Gray I was caught on the line, “all art is quite useless,”. This struck me as strange considering he wrote an entire novel about a work of art. However, I think he was making fun of the fact that art was supposed to have meaning, but, to be honest I’m still very confused about that. Why would Wilde put that contradicting line into his book unless his symbolism and portrayal of Dorian Gray’s portrait was meant to mock the idea that art had meaning.
While I know that some art is just meant to be art and does not have much meaning behind it besides its appearance, I think that most artwork does and should have meaning. It makes the artwork much more powerful and leaves an affect on the viewer. Also, art has different affects on each person and they could view it different ways. So a meaningless piece of art could mean something to a different person. Art can be interpreted in so many ways so that it always has meaning.
Gall, A 2
I don’t believe that art can exist without any moral, social or political value. Art does not simply express itself it expresses the creator of the art. This does not change my views on the picture of Dorian Gray because he changes with the person that he becomes as art can be viewed dynamically throughout history. Art may have its own life but it is given life by those who view and create it because without them its independence would have nothing to say. Art provides a connection between the creator’s thoughts, those that view it, and the time period around it.
ReplyDeleteRamsumair 7/8
After reading the excerpt by Wilde and the idea of aestheticism, I just cannot come to terms with it. I just do not agree with their views because art is made with such passion and reasoning that having be painted or sculpted without reasoning is ludicrous. One of the most famous paintings in history was the sole concept of having a meaning put into it, The Scream by Edvard Munch was painted in 1893 where artists were still stuck in the realistic era and Munch took a different outlook and jumped ahead of the future expressionists. He used the painting to express his inner feelings and thoughts and created a masterpiece that literally showed the inner thoughts of anxiety and his feelings at the time. Without having meaning in artwork, a painting is just a painting. A story is what the audience craves. They want to see the pain or understand the joy of a moment when looking into a work of art. The meaning is what truly holds the creative and artistic value in pieces.
ReplyDeleteAfter understanding aestheticism, I did have a change in heart of the novel but I have the alternate reaction. It makes me understand Dorian’s portrait even more then before. I understand the literal sense of pain, happiness, or weakness in a painting because, unlike in reality, the piece is literally showing the meaning of Dorian each time his emotions get the best of him. It is telling the story in its different facial expressions and emotions that are held each time. We, as the readers, can analyze the description of the painting each time and understand the feeling of the painting. So in all, I’ve come to understand the painting and strongly agree in the idea that paintings do have moral value when understood.
S. Güt 7/8
I do not believe a piece of artwork can exist with some type of value or reasoning. Although in the explanation of Aestheticism, I do see why Wilde’s character Dorian didn’t pay much attention to the picture. In my group’s speech, we used The Mona Lisa, and if that picture had no meaning or reasoning behind it, it may not be the historical art picture that it is today. In almost every piece of art or writing there is politics as well so I cannot imagine a picture like in Dorian Gray where it has “no meaning.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree with the idea of aestheticism because me being someone who writes music and preforms, cannot see a piece of art being written or drawn for no reason. I also believe that everything in life happens for a reason and especially with art I always find meaning behind it. But just because I feel this way, does not mean others don’t just look at pictures and see the picture. Some people dig for a deeper meaning, and others like as shown in the explanation of aestheticism, do not look for the deeper meaning, but only see it as exactly what it is.
I agree wholeheartedly with the concept of aestheticism. Art is the offspring of passion and creativity--it can be created through real life inspiration or it can be made from scratch. Either way, art possesses value. For example, the Mona Lisa has no real meaning or purpose that has carried through the tests of time. She is famous merely for being a remarkable work of art. The story behind the Mona Lisa is hardly known; we remember the painting's enchantingly haunting eyes not her intriguing backstory.
ReplyDeleteThis idea reinforced the idea that in "The Picture of Dorian Gray" the painting lived in a parallel universe to its inspiration. At the start of the novel, the painting is remarkable merely for being beautiful, not for the meaning it carried. In the end, the painting was significant again because of its inhuman appearance not the individual sins that had made it this away.
-Harris, 2
I disagree with the idea of aestheticism, that art has no meaning morally, socially, or politically. I believe this because the artist, writer, poet, etc. puts their own ideas into their artwork. This includes their morals, social views, and political opinions. We have seen this time and time again in all sorts of art. For example, in the speeches that we presented we were asked to include The Picture of Dorian Gray as well as other pieces of art that express an idea of feminism. This is a social view because it deals with how people deal with other people. Therefore, we were using art to express an idea based on the value it has. However, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, “…traditionally, artworks are intentionally endowed by their makers with properties, usually perceptual, having a significant degree of aesthetic interest, often surpassing that of most everyday objects…” I believe that some forms of art are using their influence to portray how beauty does indeed surpass morals. This however, is a social view so in the end I still disagree with the idea because even saying this it is giving a social and moral opinion that is valued by readers.
ReplyDeleteDame, E 2
According to the brief description of Aestheticism given above, art exists only for art’s sake. There is not moral, social, political, etc. reason behind art other than simply to exist. This belief, however, could not be more incorrect if it tried. Art always, always has a purpose. I always has a story that it is telling. Art does not simply exist to exist. An artist makes a piece to make a point and it is society’s job to interpret this point. Art has no boundaries, however, it does not exist for no reason. There are pieces made, such as political cartoons, to enrage, sadden, or persuade people in society. Art it there to elicit a response, not just to sit there and look nice. The point of art is to say something, anything, and say it with words that cannot be expressed out loud. Art is our loudest form speaking. Art does show morality within society. It does depict societal issues, such as the sexism that the art that we spoke of for our speeches. It does speak of political and economic issues. Every work of art, no matter the medium used to make it, has a story behind it. Thus, the beliefs of Aestheticism are incorrect.
ReplyDeleteTake for example the portrait of Dorian Gray from the book The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. The picture of Gray was painted for him by Basil to show his admiration for him. The painting seemed to have little to no effect on society in any way. However, as the story progresses, one sees that this piece of art has more significance than just being a pretty painting for a friend. I becomes Gray’s personal window to his morality. As he, and the society that he influences, becomes more and more immoral the painting becomes more and more grotesque. It shows the imperfections, the blemishes, and the monstrosity that is Gray on the inside. He may be allowed to look beautiful and untouched, but it is the painting’s job to point out how truly disgusting he is. The piece of art holds significance for this fact. The painting may not hold mush significance in society, but it does show Dorian Gray within society. The art reflects him and what he is doing to society, therefore it tells the story of the issues that can be seen within his world. There is significant importance in this concept. Art’s job it to tell a story for all to see when the art is displayed, and that is exactly what Gray’s picture is doing. Its purpose within the book is to show Gray’s progression and descent into the evil, vile, and dark being he becomes, and to do so in a clear concise manner for the readers to see. It is supposed to tell that unspoken story of the crimes that Dorian has committed against humanity. Because of this, it goes against the ideas of Aestheticism and does not, in fact, exist solely to exist. It has a moral and social purpose, as it reflects the morality of Gray and society, and therefore exists with a reason other than being art.
Thus, art does have more meaning that just to exist as something pretty to look at. Art has reason, art has purpose. Whether it is to tell of a pressing issue in the social, political, economic, or moral realms, or just to tell the story of what the artist wanted to say, art has a purpose. Therefore, overall I do not agree with the Aestheticism beliefs at all.
~C. Lenhoff 2nd period
Art has the ability to transform into a vast amount of mediums. Over time, art has commonly been seen in literature, music, film, or simply paintings and sculptures. Morality generally weaves principles into the different mediums in order to express an emotion, political belief or some specific purpose controlled by the author or illustrator. Opposing this idea, lays a movement created to believe just the opposite. To look at art as a singular being, only made for its beauty and entertainment with no purpose attached, is known as aestheticism. This movement was created in the late nineteenth century and has shaped the image of art through the years.
ReplyDeleteArt can be served for any reasoning, be it to infuse the viewers with commentary, or just for aesthetic value. For instance, the Mona Lisa, crafted by Leonardo Da Vinci has been a controversial piece for many centuries. Although the exact reasoning is unknown, his audience is to believe that the sole purpose for that specific piece of work was purely for its beauty. Recently, I visited France and was able to come face to face with this piece of work. Voices around me, all different languages, gazed in its appearance. From what I could understand, there was not a single person there trying to analyze the piece and gain a direct purpose from the portrait. In this specific scenario, Da Vinci created this piece to carry on an aesthetic legacy.
Looking into the different forms of art used in our speeches allowed me the freedom to search for depth and reasoning. I found the song Little Talks by Of Monsters and Men to be based on a relationship where the wife has Alzheimer’s. However, although this was the underlying meaning, I did not receive this from just listening to the song. I believe this song to be more aesthetic for the audience. Contrary to this, the literature we analyzed spoke immensely to our topic about woman’s rights and fueled our social discussion. In this moment, art did not serve for its beauty, it served purpose other to that.
Oscar Wilde takes the definition of aestheticism and infuses his work with ideals that do not agree. This particular movement was rebelled against in Wilde’s, The Picture of Dorian Gray. Dorian Gray received a painting from a friend only for its sight. Basil insisted that the picture was magnificent. However, controversial actions made by gray change the aesthetic value of the painting. Social issues and choices he made were shown in the portrait. The painting reflected morality and struggle. Wilde used his fictional portrait to show how art can express this purpose. Wild used his fictional portrait to prove the ideals of aestheticism false.
I do not see this novel much different from how I see other forms of art. Art can be expressive or purely aesthetic. I believe the choice is to be made by both the viewer and the creator.
Cika,M 2
Art is not just an existence of simple color or a random idea. It has life and meaning and definitely has morals and political views and a social standing. As in Dorian Gray, the picture not only represents the social and political views of the creator, who believes that the young and naiive nature of any person is key to society, but also the morals of Dorian himself. As he changes so does his picture. It shows his true inner self. If it remained young it would not represent anything to Dorian but still have the values the creator holds. Therefore, the artwork still holds value and does not simply exist as a simple picture of a simple man.
ReplyDeleteSarah Palmer 7/8
ReplyDeleteWhile I would not consider myself a supporter of an Aestheticism movement, I can understand how it may appeal to some people. I fall somewhere in between the definitions of “L'art pour l'art,” and “moral art”. I believe that some art may exist without value if the artist is not aware of the emotions, or motive their subconscious has. Art’s purpose can be revealed much later than at its conception, which is why I think some art may exist without any moral, social, or political value. Also, the value and meaning of art varies from person to person, so I find it hard to put a strict definition on what is, and isn’t art.
My own beliefs of art, how it’s created, and how it’s perceived, helped me understand the importance on the portrait in Wilde’s book. Dorian Gray was not conscious of the fragility of age, material items, and beauty. The portrait, while showcasing beauty, is used to help Gray understand reality, not to be admired just as art itself. In reference to previous beliefs, the portrait has drastic mental effects on Gray, but to others, it is merely a reflection of a face. Due to the fact I think art pushes many lines and holds many different meanings, I think people have varying opinions and strict labels such as Aestheticism is not easily applied.
Grabowski, Hannah 7/8
I find the fact that Oscar Wilde wrote The Picture of Dorian Gray with no moral in mind quite unbelievable. The book is filled with so many morals, as Wilde comments on the role of women, looks and beauty, and many other aspects of society. In my opinion, a piece of artwork cannot exist without a moral, social, or political value. Even if the author does not intend for his/her work to have value, there will be one. There are thousands of interpretations a person can have on the same piece of literature, so to say that there is no value or moral learned is invalid. When we constructed out speeches in class, for instance, we carefully wrote our theses so they would convey to the audience our big theme. This big theme is bound to have morals tied to it. By analyzing the role of gender in literature, we took a stance and used facts to support it. The audience, in turn, formed opinions on our stance and analyzed the morals of our speech. The art that we incorporated into our speech were all relevant to the topic and it was created to convey a certain point. The painting of liberty leading men was created to show the symbolism of freedom and to personify that symbol as a woman. Aestheticism, in my opinion, is more of a personal thing. If a person does not wish to connect their artwork to a certain meaning, then they wont, but that wont stop the audiences from creating meanings, reasons, and explanations for their purpose.
ReplyDeletePatel 2
Constantly pondering at this idea of aestheticism and the provided description, I constantly refer to that old famous saying: a picture is worth a thousand words. Looking deeper into that meaning I also like to believe that of those thousand words, there are a thousand synonyms, thousands of connotations and ultimately, there is indeed meaning to works of art. Anything can be art as long as one claims it is. Looking to the whole idea of Dorian Gray and the representation of art within that novel, I find it difficult to change my viewpoints towards the novel. Art does not have an independent life, it relies and lives off those individuals with or without “morals”, whom have a passion of expressing themselves and creating something. Everyone has a perspective on things, including what art means. The Picture of Dorian Gray has not altered in my mind from the aestheticism ideas, mainly because I know that art is personal and people ultimately interpret whether it has any social, political or moralistic value to it. Dorian Gray had a personal value and a societal value to it.
ReplyDeleteWhile working on the speeches gender equality and change throughout history, the art work is entirely different yet they connect. We were able to connect them together. We were like artists, blending details of artworks into a single and final product, ready to be analyzed and judged (graded) upon. The art sources were of moral, social and personal meaning behind them all. With each picture and song was a story to retell, and as generations were taught, all stories have a meaning behind it; a moral or theme, or even a life lesson. Even when one person claims an artwork has no meaning behind it, one can easily say otherwise and prove their connection. As a group and while working on the speeches, we realized that these glorious and historical artworks of different times all were able to be connected and it was (hopefully) understanding as to how the art connected.
Turnea, D 2nd Period
No, I do not think artwork can exist without any type of value, whether it is political, moral or social. And in reference to Dorian Gray, I believe that it disproves that movement. For the portrait continued to decay when Dorian was becoming corrupted. The portrait was painted because Dorian was a muse. It gave the painting purpose and gave it a firm foundation. But, as Dorian’s soul began to fill with tar, the painting lost the value it was given. It only changed my perspective on Dorian Gray in the way that it was written to serve as a slap in the face. It was written to show that art needs meaning.
ReplyDeleteFrom any experiences I have had with art, I cannot draw something out of spite. I have to be feeling a certain way, or be inspired by a certain thing. Having a muse results in artwork, in an expression of your passion towards that said muse. To make art, passion must be present. Take passion away, and all you have left is messy paint on a canvas. So with the portrait decaying in Dorian Gray, it goes to show that a painting is nothing without the muse behind it. So, in essence, the movement was shown to be faulty within the novel itself.
Reva 7/8
I disagree with the idea of Aestheticism. Even after reading Wilde’s quote, I cannot fathom the idea that every piece of artwork created has no moral, social, or political value. While some pieces may just be created for the sake of art, we frequently see different types of art representing an idea or purpose. Often time’s artist will come out and say that they were trying to convey an idea through their art. Political cartoons are created for the sole purpose to display a political value through an art medium. Banksy artwork is able to convey an idea that he(?) believes is wrong with society. These are clear examples of art containing moral, social, and political value. I now question in the purpose or lack thereof Gray’s portrait in The Picture of Dorian Gray. I wonder why Wilde wrote an entire novel around a work of art, if he had believed that art contained no purpose or meaning. Wilde wrote, “all art is quite useless.” Perhaps he was just making a satire to the idea of art having meaning. He had the artwork being altered due to specific cause or idea Gray becoming corrupt, there was an exact meaning behind the painting. Wilde must Gray’s portrait meant so much to the characters. They regarded this piece of art in the novel with a great value, while Wilde himself believes in no such thing.
ReplyDeleteLoDolce, A 7/8
I can see where the idea of aestheticism would make sense, where art is just so wonderful it just is, it doesn't have to mean something because it speaks for itself instead of having another hidden meaning behind it. However I personally would have to disagree with the aestheticism movement being a musician art is a way of expression, it is an alternative escape, it is so much more than just art. However on the aestheticism side of things, some music exists just to be music, just to exist and be beautiful without any hidden meaning behind it, intentionally. Listeners and performers alike can imagine whatever they wish to perceive the music is about even though in the composers mind it doesn't mean anything- it just is.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary art expresses so much more, thinking back to the speeches, you can say so little while saying so much and that is what through different types of art, is represented in spoken word poetry, and movie clips, and music all alike. It is indirectly saying things that are not easy to be said by word of mouth. Fighting for gender equality through different pieces of art has been a real catalyst in the gender equality movement. Art is so much more than just non-realistic representation. It brings people to have more understanding, and a little more appreciation for what it is trying to say.
Westphal 2nd
I believe that each piece of art has some sort of purpose. That purpose can be simple – to please the eye– or deep – to deliver a message. I actually agree with the view of Aestheticism. As stated in the definition given, Aestheticism expresses the view that “Art needs no moral to have value.” Let’s focus on the word “need.” In my opinion, art does not require a deep life changing meaning to be important. It can just be something that sticks in a person’s mind and becomes something they enjoy. Many forms of art do portray a moral. In our speech, we talked about the musical Dogfight. It has value from is musical brilliance and also from the message within. When my sister and I first discovered the musical, we only knew a few songs out of context from the rest of the show. We found value in the songs because they were something we sang together. We placed value on the art, but the value did not come from any possible moral that may have been conveyed.
ReplyDeleteNot that I hadn’t thought this before, but reading about Aestheticism highlighted the moral present with The Picture of Dorian Gray: each action does not go without a consequence. Aestheticism focuses on the lack of morals which brought the moral of this novel to the forefront of my mind. Moral values were also placed on the portrait in the novel by Wilde. Basil originally created the work to admire Dorian’s beauty, but Wilde made that piece of art have a moral value by giving Dorian the gift/curse of eternal beauty while the portrait became marred. This raised a question of Dorians morals: should he use this to get away with anything he wanted to? Or should he live his life as he normally would and try to do good for all?
Woods, L 2
I think that whether intentionally or not, art cannot exist without a deeper meaning. Nothing can be conjured out of thin air without previous experiences, emotions, or stigma creating the idea for it - and even if an artist truly created a meaningless piece, that doesn't mean the audience will still seek some sort of meaning from it. Life imitates art, and so often societal changes are first foreshadowed in media, and the idea to strip morals from art seems to represent the idea that representation in art thus far does not matter. This does sway my opinions on Dorian Gray somewhat - it makes me wonder if the messages I saw within the text were really meant to be there, or if that was just my own way of interpreting things. I could very well see Dorian Gray being written as a purely aesthetic piece, which might be why I felt myself reserved, and discontent with it's content.
ReplyDeleteDaugherty, 7/8.
There are so many different forms of art, and each medium has the ability to express profound emotions and feelings. Aestheticism states that the meaning that this art holds need not be focused around social-political themes, but rather can create its own meaning. This is seen in The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde because the painter, Basil Hallward, only intended the portrait to be a beautiful immortalization of his beautiful friend, Dorian Gray, but the artwork created a meaning for itself. The portrait took on all of the sins of Dorian’s life and became hideous while Dorian himself did not age. The painting expressed itself in a way that Basil had never dreamed imaginable; it was its own being.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is possible for artwork to exist without any moral, social, or political value, but simply for the beauty of the art. However, in several circumstances, art gains deeper meaning when it is tied to a moral, social, or political value. On the opposite spectrum, there are also works of art that do better without being tied to a specific value because they truly withstand the test of time and are relatable in every day and age.
-Dushek, K 2˚
I think that art is always going to hold some impression of the creator in it. Why would anyone actually create anything for no purpose other than aesthetics? Personally I thin that what is so beautiful about art is the fact that it is so human- that it holds so much of humanity in it. If one id to take that away- to take away the impression of the artist- then it is no longer truly art.
ReplyDeleteMy impression of the Picture of Dorian Gray is greatly changed knowing this information about Oscar Wilde's beliefs. I took the book to be, at least in part, a warning about the ability of a human to put themselves so completely into a piece of art and of art to take a human so completely into its being. now, this particular meaning seems lost.
I personally do not think that art can exist without bias and value beyond aesthetics as if it did then it would lose what makes it so beautiful- its ability to capture the human condition and its way of touching even the most remote regions of the human heart in some way.
A. Jankovsky 7-8
I truly believe that art is not only a reflection upon society but also a reflection on the artist. To say that art can exist with no moral meaning is a strong statement. I believe that on rare occasions one can intend to do art with no other reason than to just do it. However, at some level of the subconscious there is always something of one put in art. I do not believe that art can exist completely on its own; it feeds off the subject and the world surrounding to thrive. The ideas of Aestheticism are something that I completely disagree with. Every piece of work tells a story of what is going on in the culture surrounding it. Artwork is meant to make us think and question the world to say that none of that means anything is wrong. Sometimes I think a piece of art can be over analyzed. I often think that in current day the meaning behind a song is nothing more than dollar signs. As a culture we always seem to want more, so as a whole Aestheticism may be discrediting at but it does hold some valid points. In The Picture of Dorian Grey Wilde has his characters in multiple positions discredit the idea of art even at one point saying that art is meaningless. When you examine the book though which is a piece of art in itself it is so centered on the idea of morality. You cannot separate the book from its statements about humans and their vices. Wilde is speaking of a culture as a whole when he wrote his book. Although sometimes a piece of art may be over analyzed it is a reflection of the culture, and deserves to be questioned
ReplyDeleteSansone A 2
Morality pertains to the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong. I do agree that art can exist in a state where it possesses no sense of morality and that it exists merely because it exists. When thinking of “The Picture of Dorian Gray” there are elements of the novel that support the theory of aestheticism and admonish the notion that art needs justification. For example, the portrait of Dorian ages whenever he engages in evil/ sinful behavior, yet Wilde gives readers no answer as to why or how the pictures ages. This obvious piece of art in the novel illustrates that its evolution and existence merely exist because it can. Although it has “moral value” in the way that it showcases all of Dorian’s moral shortcomings, there is no particular reason as to how it exists. Wilde suggests that art, like humanity, does not abide by moral standards and that it can exist meaninglessly. It is naïve to assume that everything in this world must have a meaning behind it; some things may be done just for the sake of doing. Along with this, I think that the assessment of “value” attached to art is subjective. What one person may view as a political or social statement another may just view as colors on a canvas. For example, when writing the speech about gender roles in art my group used the “Mona Lisa” as a piece that has been subjugated to the typical female gender role. To another, the “Mona Lisa” may just be a portrait of a woman with a peculiar facial expression.
ReplyDeleteAguinaga, C 7/8*
I think although it is hard to create art in isolation from moral, social and political meanings, it is possible. Most artists create their art based upon their moral, political, or social beliefs; however there is art that has been created simply because it is beautiful. Art can be made for many different reasons, whether it have a deeper motive or to simply release a feeling or to make something worth observing. Classical portraits portraying them beautiful and rich don’t necessarily have a deeper meaning. They were created in vanity and made to please the viewer.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Picture of Dorian Gray” by Oscar Wilde, Dorian Gray exemplifies the aestheticism movement, believing that art has no purpose except to be beautiful and to be art. The definition of aestheticism changes my opinion of his actions. Without the knowledge of the philosophy of aestheticism I would assume that Dorian Gray’s actions are deplorably selfish, impulsive and indulgent. Although the definition of aestheticism does not make me like him as a character more, it gives him more weight as a character. Although he may lack political, social, and moral depth, he is still art, and his story is still beautiful.
Florek, E. 7/8
I absolutely believe that art has aesthetic appeal that doesn't necessarily have any underlying meaning. Abstract art, color splashes, and photography oftentimes have little meaning, yet look beautiful and deserve to be considered art. As an artist, I know that art takes a significant amount of effort regardless of what is created. Wilde could have incorporated this idea into "The Picture of Dorian Gray" in both Basil's art within the text and with the entire text itself. Oscar Wilde may have created this work simply for art's sake. The story, its characters, and the plot twists are beautiful due to the wonderful word choice and writing style that Wilde uses. The story could have been created entirely to just be beautiful.
ReplyDeleteBasil's artwork in the book is beautiful; we are told this on multiple occasions without ever seeing the canvases. Basic portraits could be simply painted of beautiful people for the sake of their beauty. Basil's portrait of Dorian Gray didn't necessarily have meaning, it was simply a picture of beauty. Dorian Gray was so obsessed with beauty that he assigned meaning to the portrait that it was never meant to have. Dorian needs to learn to accept beauty at face value, as does Basil. Basil assumes that Dorian's beauty and youthful appearance has menaing. He believes that Dorian is innocent of all the things he's heard just because of his looks. Basil needs to learn to accept that beauty can be present just because, instead of assigning meaning to anything with aesthetic appeal. Art is art. This story is a work of art, as are the works of art within the text.
- S. Bahr, 7/8*