Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Art produced in service of religion was not worked for ar... — Carmelics
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Art produced in service of religion does not qualify as art in the fullest sense.

    Art produced in service of religion was not worked for art's own sake.

    Aesthetics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Aesthetics

    Related

    Art produced in service of religion does not qualify as art in the fullest sense...Genuine art requires that the artist work for art's own sake.Religious art subordinated beauty to the communication of meaning.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Aesthetics
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Art produced in service of religion does not qualify as art in the ful...93%Genuine art requires that the artist work for art's own sake.76%If a non-linguistic art can function as a symbol of a religious idea, ...72%Duchamp's Fountain may be displayed in a museum not because it is a wo...71%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: aesthetics-18th-german
    View source passageHide passage
    I should prefer that only those be called works of art in which the artist had occasion to show himself as such and in which beauty was his first and ultimate aim. None of the others, which betray too obvious traces of religious conventions, deserves this name because in their case the artist did not create for art’s sake [weil die Kunst hier nicht um ihren selbst willen gearbeitet, literally “because here art did not work for its own sake”], but his art was merely a handmaid of religion, which

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective