O, For Pete's Sake discussion

I'm assuming that most of us have actually started "Dorian Gray" and that we all read the author's preface (it was included in my edition). I don't know about you all, but I found many discussion worthy points in that 1 1/2 pages of text.

After the initial publication in 1890, the publisher decided to add a preface to the next edition following the large outcry regarding the large quantities of "immoral" themes found in the book. In his preface, Wilde contends that morality and art have no business together whatsoever. That true art is only worth anything when it is made solely for its beauty. Consider the last paragraph of the preface:

"We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless."

So what do you think about Wilde's claims? Is art merely for beauty, or does it have a deeper purpose? How should an artist address morality (if at all)? How does morality play a role in what you do and do not read? Should we discard an author because immoral things happen in the book, or because the author's claims are immoral, or neither?

Just some thoughts that popped into my head after reading it. Would love some feedback!

Wonderful question. Thank you for starting us off so well!

I have only read the intro so far, but the first thing that came to mind as I began this book was the old concept of, “Ars gratia artis“ or, "L'art pour l'art." (Art for art’s sake.) During the 19th century, there was a significant public struggle over the true purpose of art. The traditional view of the time was that art should have a moral purpose. This was supported by folks like John Ruskin (who I believe got into a little personal trouble for “slandering” an artist... was it Whistler? ...who didn’t share his views). Folks like Theophile Gautier were arguing the opposite, art as an end in itself. (This summary is too brief and spans different countries and issues, but searching "aesthetics" and some of these other key terms will yield more historical context if you are interested.)

I love reading about all of this, but I’m not completely sure where I land yet. For years I have loved the idealism of the Pre-Raphaelites. However, I must admit that some of their works are so literary and didactic, they could almost be considered propaganda. I feel the same way about more modern “teachy” pieces that sacrifice composition and quality for sermonizing.

However, art that blatantly strives for no meaning seems to betray a nihilism and self-centeredness that disgusts me in a different way. I could almost argue that it’s impossible to create in a moral vacuum, and so most of these pieces ultimately defeat themselves. Defining self by inverse is a new ethic, not a non-ethic.

I’ve been thinking about this question all day, and I think this might be (tentatively) where I land: both extremes of motivation (art for it’s own sake, and didactic art) can produce proud, bad work. So, ultimately, my respect is earned on a different scale altogether... is the work honest, humble, and well-executed? Also, I must consider whether or not a piece promotes growth or damage in my soul, which is clearly a subjective standard, so I need the Holy Spirit's guidance constantly.

H.R. Rookmaaker has a free book online that discusses some of this subject, by the way. It is called _Art Needs No Justification_ and you can find it through a Google search. I don't agree with everything he says, but there are a few gems in the midst.

What a great question! Thank you for beginning the dialogue!

I'm trying to keep this answer short, as it could expand for days! If I have written something unclear, please let me know! :)

This is an interesting question. loved reading becca's thoughts on it.

I have ONLY read the preface, and am a bit behind on the book. My reaction to it was fairly negative. In trying to make art only about the pursuit of beauty, I think Wilde is ultimately robbing artistic creation of it's soul.

I agree with Becca's comments about self-absorbed nihilism being the outcome. And I share her frustration with the lowered standard for Christian/ moral/ meaningful work. I also find it a continuum, where the middle is best. Form, function, style, and originality do matter, but without a SOUL a work becomes meaningless at best and destructive at worst.

Speaking here, among friends who are believers, it is my conviction that art of the highest value, be it visual or written, leads the soul to God. Not twiffy, light, christianeese which is popular today, but something that really engages the human experience and whispers/ speaks/ exhorts redemption or inspiration. It nourishes the soul by drawing it toward right relationship with God. Speaking of the written word specifically, though much of my favorite art is secular in nature, I embrace it and return to it repeatedly because of how it feeds my soul.

Wilde's preface, for me, was a discouragement to continuing. I'm still interested in the book as a classic, but having read a little background on him (which i usually do AFTER I read something) and hearing him express his views in the preface, I am not confident I will find his work to be of the highest artistic value. This does not mean it has no value, as there is gain in reading works written from a different perspective. But those reads neither become part of my life experience, nor call me to return again. Nonetheless, onward!

PS Ashley. thanks for volunteering to lead. Excellent start!

i was thinking about this more today, and kept coming back to a theological truth.

Man defines freedom as the ability to do whatever he wants. In other words, freedom from any moral (or other) restraint. But God, in Romans 6, defines freedom as the ability to what is right - to live free from sin.

I think the point at which I diverge from Wilde is related to this. He is advocating beauty and artistic expression for their own sake, apart from any moral code, but what he is really demanding is freedom to do whatever he wants.

Hmm..didn't know that I was volunteering to lead, but sure!

My thinking is along the same lines as Ebookwormy's. To me, the purpose of all creation is to point to the Creator (i.e. God). As sub-creators (how's that for a nice Tolkien reference?)our own creations must in turn point to God and His truth. That is where true beauty is found. Art without a purpose or meaning is useless, empty, and ultimately unfulfilling.

Having said this, it is VERY important to understand where Wilde was coming from. His thoughts are nowhere near original as he was at the tail end of the "Aestheticism" movement (check out Wikipedia's page for more info) that stretched back to the likes of Keats, Shelley, and the Pre-Raphaelites.

I'm about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through the book, and to me it is almost one big contradiction. I can't figure out if Wilde really believes that personal pleasure is the most important thing in the world or not. It's pretty fascinating actually!

I find myself skeptical of Wilde's preface. I have a vastly different worldview but even so it is hard to believe that he would devote himself to something he found useless. I do however appreciate art for the sake of expression. Pain expressed well is beautiful sometimes because of the abrasion.
Regardless of the artist's own heart art does point to the creator.

I do really appreciate this line: "It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." The musician in me knows that expression well done has intrinsic value but the historian in me comprehends that we cannot ever take ourselves out of our work. It is the interaction between the senses of the artist (their eyes or ears...), the reflection of the audience and the brilliance of the creator that intersect to produce art.

Since the artist and the subject both had a creator, reflecting that creator is unavoidable, is it not?

@ Ashley,lol i see now that our discussion leader is Jeanette!