The concept of art is ever central to the human condition and has been a source of contemplation for as long as it has existed. Throughout history, we have sought to establish a baseline for the significance of art in both the human and material world. 

In the 19th century, French philosopher Victor Cousin attempted to do so when he coined the term “l’art pour l’art,” translated in English as “art for art’s sake.” Like many aestheticist thinkers of the time, Cousin believed that art, in its perceived “true” form, should be devoid of all social or utilitarian value, be it moral, philosophical, political or otherwise. Though professed solely as an endorsement of autotelism in art, the concept of a self-enclosed “art’s sake” is fundamentally impossible. 

Regardless of purpose, art exists as an extension of its creator and their thoughts, feelings and ideas. It is as much a medium of expression as a vessel for aesthetic pleasure and thus cannot exist without the explicitly human context of its creation. The “sake” of art is not simply to create, but the intent to express an idea — be it political, philosophical or purely aesthetic. This intent, too, exists in a broader context that defines the art that lies within it. 

As a result of its production, the true circumstances of art lie within its creator. It is as much a product of the society it was made in as it is a product of the vision of the self. Just as the individual cannot exist wholly independent of any societal context, art is also inseparably tied to the material conditions of its creator and the motivations behind its development.  

The ability to make art — translating one creative vision into tangible form — exists in the societal context in which the creator pursues their craft. As such, there is an intrinsic political context to all art, regardless of whether it expresses overtly political ideas. Like the humans of which it is born, art inherently cannot exist in a vacuum — and neither does the idea of “art for art’s sake.” 

In a capitalist society, wherein the means of production are under private ownership, the ability of the artist to create art is misappropriated as a method of accumulating capital — a political context from which an artistic work can never be extricated. Whereas art is an intimate relationship between mind and material, capitalism requires that such a bond be broken to acquire something of aesthetic value — but never for the creator to own or realize the means of their vision. 

The idea that “true” art has no meaning is in service of bourgeois aestheticism: the idea that art is product and product alone. To detach art from the intent to express is to reduce it to mere craftsmanship, separating it from the human aspect of its creation. If we are to measure art by its isolation from human thought, then its legitimacy is to be defined by a lack of artistry. It is a mentality of commodification — the value of the craft but never for the crafter. 

The proposal of an “art’s sake” is built on this paradox: the desire for commodities devoid of human touch versus the desire for artistic commodities. It legitimizes craftsmanship based on the abstract notion of aesthetic value — and yet, because it rejects that which makes aesthetic value perceptible, it values neither art nor artist. It is the idea that the creator — the arbiter of expression and aesthetic significance — should be estranged not only from the phenomenon of art, but from the ability to express themselves at all.