𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐎𝐍𝐈𝐀 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄𝐒

arte . 𝐋'𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐋'𝐚𝐫𝐭

As such, 𝗝𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗯𝗯𝗼𝘁𝘁 𝗠𝗰𝗡𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗿 wrote the following in which he discarded the accustomed role of art in the service of the state or official religion, which had adhered to its practice since the 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 of the 16th century: "𝘼𝙧𝙩 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙥𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙥 - 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙚...𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙚𝙮𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙖𝙧, 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙩, 𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙡𝙤𝙫𝙚, 𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙨𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚." Such a brusque dismissal also expressed the artist's distancing of himself from 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮. All that remains of 𝘙𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 in this statement is the reliance on the artist's own eye and sensibility as the arbiter.

The explicit slogan is associated, in the history of English art and letters, with 𝗪𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗛𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 (4 August 1839 - 30 July 1894) and his followers in the 𝘈𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘔𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, which was self-consciously in rebellion against 𝘝𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮. It first appeared in print in English in two works published simultaneously in 1868: in Pater's review of 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘀 (24 March 1834 - 3 October 1896)'s poetry in the 𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, and the other in 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮 𝘉𝘭𝘢𝘬𝘦 by 𝗔𝗹𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲 (5 April 1837 - 10 April 1909). However, 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘆 (18 July 1811 - 24 December 1863) had used the term privately in an 1839 letter to his mother in which he recommended 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗹𝗲 (4 December 1795 - 5 February 1881)'s 𝘔𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, writing that 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗹𝗲 had done more than any other to give "𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝘁'𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲 . . . 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲." A modified form of Pater's review appeared in his 𝘚𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 (1873), one of the most influential texts of the Aesthetic Movement.

𝗘𝗻𝗼𝗰𝗵 𝗔𝗿𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘁 (27 May 1867 - 27 March 1931) made a facetious remark on the issue: "𝘼𝙢 𝙄 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙛𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙥𝙤𝙘𝙠𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙬𝙤 𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙚𝙘𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙙𝙤 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙢𝙮𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛? 𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙚. 𝙄𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙮 𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙧𝙩'𝙨 𝙨𝙖𝙠𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙧𝙪𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙."

𝗙𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗺 𝗡𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘇𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲 ( 15 October 1844 - 25 August 1900) argued that there is '𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝘁'𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲', the arts always expresses human values, communicate core beliefs:

"𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙧𝙩, 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙗𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙤𝙜𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨 - 𝙞𝙣 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩, 𝙡'𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙥𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙡'𝙖𝙧𝙩, 𝙖 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙡. "𝙍𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙣𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙖 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚!" - 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝘼 𝙥𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙩, 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙, 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙨: 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙙𝙤? 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙚? 𝙜𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙮? 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙚? 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧? 𝙒𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙣𝙨 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙫𝙖𝙡𝙪𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨. 𝙄𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙖 "𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧"? 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩? 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙨𝙩'𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙣𝙤 𝙨𝙝𝙖𝙧𝙚? 𝙊𝙧 𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙨𝙩'𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮? 𝘿𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙘 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙩 𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙩, 𝙤𝙧 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙧𝙩, 𝙖𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚? 𝙖𝙩 𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙧𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚? 𝘼𝙧𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙪𝙡𝙪𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚: 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙖𝙨 𝙡'𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙥𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙡'𝙖𝙧𝙩?"