Something for Somebody

December 28, 2024


Whether it’s a painting, a novel, a sculpture, or a song, art is created for somebody. There is no such thing as art that exists in a vacuum, untouched by the external world. Every artist, no matter how reclusive, creates with an audience in mind — whether that audience is an immediate viewer or listener, or the artist’s future self. The act of creation, by its very nature, is a dialogue. And even when an artist is "creating for themselves," they are communicating with a part of their own psyche that is, in essence, shaped by the world around them.

Art Is a Dialogue, Not a Solitary Act

Even if an artist were to create in complete isolation, there is still an implicit "somebody" involved. Art does not exist in a void; it always has some kind of context, some framework of meaning. Even abstract works that seem to defy interpretation are communicating something, even if it's a challenge or an invitation to the viewer to construct meaning.

Take, for example, the famous works of abstract painters like Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko. While their paintings seem to be focused on the act of creation itself — the splatter of paint, the exploration of color and form — these works are not just self-contained objects. They are invitations to the viewer to engage, to find meaning, to interpret. In essence, the artist is saying, “This is for you. Take it, reflect upon it, and make something of it.” The relationship between creator and audience is woven into the fabric of the artwork itself.

The same goes for literature. A writer who pens a novel is always, consciously or unconsciously, writing with an audience in mind. Sure, an author might say they are writing for themselves, as a form of personal expression or therapy. But to suggest that the words on the page exist purely in isolation from any external feedback or interpretation is naive. The act of writing is an attempt to communicate, whether the writer intends it to be a universal message or a deeply personal one. Even the act of writing “just for yourself” is a response to an inner need for connection — whether with oneself, with others, or with the larger world.

Economic Realities of Art

Beyond the philosophical considerations, there is also the reality of economics. Whether we like it or not, art is a product in a marketplace. Artists are often supported (or not) by patrons, institutions, and consumers, and their work is valued according to demand, taste, and market trends. While we often hear about the "starving artist" who creates purely for the sake of creation, even these artists are influenced by the world around them. In fact, many artists are driven by the desire for recognition, financial support, or critical acclaim. Even the most avant-garde, independent works often rely on some form of social or financial validation — be it through gallery exhibitions, literary reviews, or streaming platforms.

Consider the art world’s obsession with the notion of "the artist" as a brand. The identity of an artist is often just as important, if not more so, than the art itself. The artist's personal story, their image, their engagement with the world — all of these factors play a major role in shaping how their work is received and valued. This is far from the idea of art being a disinterested, self-contained pursuit. Art, like all forms of human expression, exists within the fabric of society, and its meaning is shaped by the cultural, social, and economic forces that surround it.

Myth of Autonomy

One of the most seductive aspects of the “art for art’s sake” ideology is its emphasis on the autonomy of the artist. It suggests that artists are individuals working in isolation, free from the pressures of market forces, social expectations, or political influences. The artist is portrayed as a lone genius, untethered from the world.

But this view is overly romantic and, frankly, unrealistic. The reality is that no artist exists in a bubble. They are shaped by the very world they inhabit — by the society, the culture, and the historical moment in which they live. This doesn’t necessarily mean that their art is dictated by those forces, but it’s almost impossible to imagine art that is entirely independent of them.

Think about the works of revolutionary artists like Picasso, Goya, or Picasso, who engaged deeply with the political and social struggles of their time. They did not make art solely for personal satisfaction or aesthetic pleasure. Their works were responses to the injustices, traumas, and upheavals they witnessed. Even the most "personal" works are often reflections of the artist's broader understanding of the world, and the desire to engage with it on some level — even if it’s an act of rebellion or critique.

Art as Communication

At its core, art is about communication. The idea that art exists for its own sake, disconnected from the world of relationships, emotions, and exchanges, is an illusion. Art is a bridge between the artist and the audience, an invitation to explore new ideas, challenge assumptions, or simply connect on a human level.

When an artist creates something, they are speaking to someone, even if that someone is future generations or an anonymous viewer. Art is not a solitary act, but rather a shared experience — even if it’s just the artist and their canvas in the beginning. There is always someone on the other end, whether it’s the person viewing the painting in a gallery or the reader turning the page of a novel.

In this sense, the idea of "art for art's sake" is a romantic myth. All art is made for somebody — and even if that "somebody" is not explicitly identified, the intention to communicate is always there. Art lives because it connects. It is the ultimate expression of our desire to be seen, heard, and understood. The notion that art exists solely for its own sake overlooks this fundamental truth.

So the next time you hear someone talk about “art for art’s sake,” remember: art is never just for the artist. It’s for somebody. And that somebody might be you.