Lal, you seem to be following (at least in this thread) the 19th century 'Art for Art's Sake' movement.
Oscar Wilde made the point that...
Quote:
|
A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist.
|
James McNeill Whistler, a friend of Oscar's (that is until their egos became too big to fit in one room) concluded...
Quote:
People have acquired the habit of looking, as who should
say, not at a picture, but through it, at some human fact,
that shall, or shall not, from a social point of view, better
their mental or moral state...
|
Then Whistler added more bluntly...
Quote:
|
Art should be independent of all claptrap —should stand alone and appeal to the artistic sense of eye or ear, without confounding this with emotions entirely foreign to it, as devotion, pity, love, patriotism and the like
|
I don't necessarily subscribe to the Art for Art's Sake Movement (although the critiques and essays of Walter Pater are fascinating), nor do I think one can necessarily divorce intellectual considerations such as 'meaning' or 'social impact' from some art (particularly literature), but one can certainly exclude these considerations in a discussion and simply discuss, as you said "the sheer poetry of it all."
Ummm...where do you wish to start?