Poetry Influence Our Mind & Soul
Art And Morality
Towards the end of the 19th century, a school of artists arose who said that art has nothing to do with life, whether moral or social, but that it exists for its own sake. It has not and it need not have any bearing on life. Its purpose is to achieve perfection in the formal expression of life and nature. Its mission is fulfilled when beauty is realised. This school put the manner, the technique, before everything. The result was that poets devoted themselves to discover the world beautiful, to create the perfect image rather than to express life.
The painter sought to achieve delicacy and harmony in line and colour. An illustration of this conception of art is to be found in Rabindranath's 'Urbasi', who stands for the eternally beautiful in the sheer perfection of form. She has no ties, no duties, and no assignment in the scheme of life, except to exist as the symbol of beauty. Such a work of art is end in itself; it is not the means to an end. It does not have any social purpose.
This theory of art is true so far as it suggests that an artist is not a teacher or preacher. It is in this sense that Keats said, "We hate poetry that has a palpable design on us." and Shelley declared that he hated moralistic or didactic poetry.
But when in the late 19th century writers like Walter Pater, or Baudelaire, or Poe, said that art should not have anything to do with the moral values that constitute the essence of life, we are plainly on debatable grounds. A French poet said, "To admire art because it can uplift the individual is like admiring the rose because we extract from its medicine for eye."
First of all, let us at once admit that logical consequence of our acceptance of this view is the development of an attitude of irresponsibility in the artists; it promotes a sort of aesthetic anarchism. Then the artist becomes a law unto himself. The artist no longer reflects life in its wholeness, but in isolated, detached fragments. In such fragmentary glimpses,
Towards the end of the 19th century, a school of artists arose who said that art has nothing to do with life, whether moral or social, but that it exists for its own sake. It has not and it need not have any bearing on life. Its purpose is to achieve perfection in the formal expression of life and nature. Its mission is fulfilled when beauty is realised. This school put the manner, the technique, before everything. The result was that poets devoted themselves to discover the world beautiful, to create the perfect image rather than to express life.
The painter sought to achieve delicacy and harmony in line and colour. An illustration of this conception of art is to be found in Rabindranath's 'Urbasi', who stands for the eternally beautiful in the sheer perfection of form. She has no ties, no duties, and no assignment in the scheme of life, except to exist as the symbol of beauty. Such a work of art is end in itself; it is not the means to an end. It does not have any social purpose.
This theory of art is true so far as it suggests that an artist is not a teacher or preacher. It is in this sense that Keats said, "We hate poetry that has a palpable design on us." and Shelley declared that he hated moralistic or didactic poetry.
But when in the late 19th century writers like Walter Pater, or Baudelaire, or Poe, said that art should not have anything to do with the moral values that constitute the essence of life, we are plainly on debatable grounds. A French poet said, "To admire art because it can uplift the individual is like admiring the rose because we extract from its medicine for eye."
First of all, let us at once admit that logical consequence of our acceptance of this view is the development of an attitude of irresponsibility in the artists; it promotes a sort of aesthetic anarchism. Then the artist becomes a law unto himself. The artist no longer reflects life in its wholeness, but in isolated, detached fragments. In such fragmentary glimpses,