"Art for art's sake" is the usual English rendering of a French slogan, from the early 19th century, ''l'art pour l'art'', and expresses a philosophy that the intrinsic value of art, and the only "true" art, is divorced from any didactic, moral or utilitarian function. This definition, pulled from Wikipedia, is something I've been thinking a lot about lately. The thing that brought it to the forefront of my brain wanderings was an episode from eleventh series of Top Gear. The episode was featuring the Alfa Romeo 8c (pictured below).
The connection between this particular car and "Art for Art's Sake" comes from a call Jeremy Clarkson had from a curator of the Tate gallery. He stated that a car can never be art because "true" art can have no purpose outside of itself. Within the show Jeremy concluded that this particular car didn't perform very well and was hopelessly impractical. Because of this it was good at looking good and nothing else. This got me thinking. I've finally figured out the reason for people that are famous but really have nothing to contribute to society. The likes of Paris Hilton, Joseph Scallon, and any and all fashion models. They don't create anything, they don't contribute to society, and they basically only fulfill the purpose of being nice to look at. If I gave off the wrong impression with that I apologize. I like art, and that is what they are. They give us all something nice to look at. I know what some of you are thinking. Paris Hilton isn't art, she's hideous. But let me ask you this. Do you like the way that all art looks? I don't really like most of Pablo Picasso's works but you'd be hard pressed to find someone that doesn't think his works are art. On that note, the only thing left to do is ask if I can hang one of these people on my wall. Anyone?