Works of art, in my opinion, are the only objects in the material universe to possess internal order, and that is why, though I don't believe that only art matters, I do believe in Art for Art's sake.
The quote "Works of art, in my opinion, are the only objects in the material universe to possess internal order, and that is why, though I don't believe that only art matters, I do believe in Art for Art's sake" by E. M. Forster expresses the idea that art has a unique ability to create its own sense of harmony and structure, separate from the chaos or randomness of the physical world. Forster suggests that unlike material objects, which are governed by external forces or utility, art possesses an internal order that makes it inherently valuable. This internal order is what allows art to transcend the limitations of the material world.
Forster acknowledges that while art may not be the only thing that matters in life, he advocates for the idea of Art for Art’s sake—the belief that art has value in and of itself, independent of its practical uses or moral lessons. Forster implies that the intrinsic beauty and structure found in art should not be judged solely by its ability to serve an external purpose, but rather appreciated for its aesthetic and emotional impact.
The origin of this quote reflects Forster’s thoughts on the purpose of art in society. As a novelist and essayist, he valued art for its capacity to offer a glimpse into the human condition and to communicate complex emotions and ideas. By asserting that art holds an internal order, Forster emphasizes that the experience of art is a form of self-contained exploration, where the work itself can offer deeper meaning beyond external interpretations or uses.
For artists and critics, this quote serves as a reminder that art should be valued not only for its ability to serve a moral or practical purpose but for its intrinsic qualities that create a unique, ordered experience. It encourages a deeper appreciation of art as an end in itself, a celebration of creativity and expression that offers a profound connection to the world beyond the material.
TTTrang Thuy
As someone who struggles with chaos in daily life, I find comfort in Forster’s idea. Art really can feel like a sanctuary of structure and meaning. But I’m also thinking—does this internal order come from the artwork itself, or from the way we engage with it? In other words, is the order inherent, or do we bring it by interpreting and appreciating the piece? That distinction feels important in understanding his point.
TDTrang Dang
Reading this, I feel both inspired and challenged. Forster elevates art in a way that feels almost sacred, as if it’s the last realm where meaning is built in rather than imposed. But does that imply that the rest of the material world is somehow meaningless or disordered? I’m curious whether this view is comforting or alienating for people who find beauty and purpose in everyday, non-artistic objects and experiences.
BBBao Bao
There’s something bold and romantic about Forster’s claim, but I question how absolute it is. Isn’t internal order also found in science, mathematics, even well-designed architecture? What makes art’s order distinct or superior in his view? I wish he expanded more on what he meant by 'internal order'—does it refer to harmony, intention, structure, meaning? It’s a beautiful sentiment, but I’d love to dig deeper into its implications.
HHlice
This quote makes me reflect on the philosophy behind 'Art for Art’s sake.' I understand Forster isn’t saying art is the only thing that matters, but he's still placing a deep faith in its value apart from utility. That makes me wonder: in a world increasingly focused on productivity and function, how do we justify art that doesn’t serve a clear purpose? Should we even have to? Or is beauty and order reason enough?
TANguyen Tuan anh
I’m really intrigued by the idea that works of art have a unique kind of internal order. Does Forster mean that unlike nature or human life—which can be chaotic and unpredictable—art is intentionally structured, crafted with coherence? If so, what about art that intentionally embraces disorder, like some forms of abstract or conceptual art? Can we still say those works possess internal order, or does that challenge his premise entirely?