An Opposing View - some thoughts

Over the last few years, as I have shaped my opinions on art and the forces behind the work I make I have come to the conclusion that for me, art is for art's sake. To expand, I have tried to work against that general understanding that works of art must contain a social or political standpoint, an opinion, or some message. Even the bio and statement on my website mention this opposition of mine. This point of view has never really been challenged by anyone before - but I think people are either just too nice, or that we live in a post-post modern world where no one feels the need to challenge artists' statements.
I read an article about a month ago which I am revisiting for this post that challenges my perspective. The article was written by Meredith Tax and is called Culture is not Neutral, Whom Does it Serve? It was originally presented in 1969 and I found it in a book of collected essays called Radical Perspectives in the Arts.

Tax begins by presenting her thesis: that culture is not politically neutral and that it is impossible for it to be so. Cultural products, like any other products created by humans, are directly related to their social, political, and economical origins. She continues that in the arts, even omissions of political statements are still political - an argument which I've heard before and that, which I oppose in theory, have never been able to argue successfully.
She then goes on to discuss the problem with "art for art's sake" (which is my bread and butter) saying that this philosophy is relatively new, and was invented to satisfy a market. Previous to our time, art was created for a clearly defined reason - the demands of religious conventions or the specific needs of a patron. Only in the capitalist system does the art itself dictate the market rather than the other way around. According to Tax, the recent breakdown of the line between "high" and "low" art is also partly responsible for the acceptance of the "art for art's sake" philosophy.

Tax wrote this article in a time that is ideologically different from ours (or at least mine, as a student of post-post modern contemporary art where anything goes and Piss Christ is passé). Simply as an artifact, it was interesting to read an article where rock and roll is discussed as a new artistic form. It was great to read an article that challenged me to think about why I do what I do.

Baxandall, Lee, editor. Radical Perspectives in the Arts. Pelican Books, Ltd, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England. 1972.