This is a paper for an english class I had to write. Even though I wrote it a day before it was do, I was quite pleased with it, or at least I was then. I haven't reread it since. I am posting it here
Dorian Gray is a cynical, hedonist, who in the end, is defeated by his hubristic lifestyle, and a possible change of heart. He becomes the culmination of Lord Henry’s philosophies, and it slowly ruins the lives around him, until it starts falling in on him. These philosophies of Lord Henry, and Dorian Gray, basically encompass the idea of l’art pour l’art, or art for art’s sake. The Portrait of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde has a famous preface that is his own take on l’art pour l’art. He argues that art is done for itself, is true in form, free from morals, and other statements of that nature. Wilde also claims that "there is no such thing as morals or an immoral book” (Wilde Preface), yet, this story seemingly goes against this idea, by having the characters embody this principle, and show the fall and unraveling of their lives because of it. Though this may seem like this contradicts the preface, that living that kind of life did this, but in reality, we are still putting our opinions and morals into the story. The preface warns us "Those who go beneath the surface do so at their own peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their own peril". We are trying to go beneath the surface, to find this moral that is presented, and we are getting mad that it contradicts what is said in the preface, but we are indeed doing it at our own peril. There is no contradiction between the preface and the novel, because, as disclaimers do, it warns us about what humans natural do when given a piece of art, and we try to attribute more to it then there is actually there. In The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde, the ideas and concepts presented in the preface do not contradict the rest of the novel, through its defining of art, and more specifically, novels.
When discussing topics like art and morality, it is hard not to get into general philosophy, since they are essentially one in the same. People can talk and debate about philosophy almost endlessly, and enjoy it too. We can see this take place a lot in the novel as well, between Lord Henry, Dorian Gray, and Basil Hallward. Lord Henry’s philosophies are basically what cause the rest of the book. He is the epitome of the preface. Many times throughout the book, he will monologue about his ideas on beauty, society, art, and other topics. One example of this is when Henry defends himself against Basil during an argument, “I make a great difference between people. I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their good intellects” (Wilde 11). To tie that quote in with the preface, we have this line “Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are cultivated. For these there is hope” (Preface), which explains Henry’s and Dorian’s friendship really well. Throughout the book, Dorian Grey is described as incredibly beautiful. At first, he is considered innocent, but with Henry’s influence, and a mystical wish, he remains beautiful as his soul becomes dark. According to the preface, Dorian’s dark soul should not matter, because he is beautiful. Henry chooses him as a friend because of his beauty, and since he is finding Dorian’s inner beauty because of his outer beauty, he is doing well. Lord Henry even explains this. After learning about Dorian’s background, he says “Yes; it was an interesting background. It posed the lad, made him more perfect as it were” (33). Even though Dorian has such a complex and dark background, he is still beautiful to Henry. And when Dorian leads his own life down a spiraling path, Henry still continues to watch and approve of what he does. In this essence, there is no contradiction between the preface and novel.
Basil Hallward is a character that also embodies the preface, but in a different way. While Henry is the preface in almost every way, Basil is the opposite. He detests almost everything Henry says. The only connection to the preface he has is him with his art. Basil becomes so obsessed with Dorian, his beauty, and the art he wants to make, that it will eventually put a strain on their relationship. Basil explains to Henry “What the invention of oil-painting was to the Venetians… and the face of Dorian Gray will some day be to me…his personality has suggested to me an entirely new manner of art” (12). This idea fits in with several ideas in the preface. The first line says “The artist is the creator of beautiful things” (preface), and since Dorian is a beautiful man, he is a creator of beautiful things. But it isn’t only that, it is much more. Basil is so captivated by Dorian, that on a metaphysical level, he believes he created a new form of art. “The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things” (preface), and that is exactly what Basil, at least believes he does. Basil is consumed by the beauty of Dorian, the portrait almost captures that essence of beauty, and Basil becomes the aforementioned critic. This connection between the preface and novel mirrors what Oscar Wilde is trying to accomplish. Wilde’s preface presents the idea that he has seen the true essence of art, or at least just literary forms, and in writing this books that is all about the preface, creates the art that the preface mentions. Wilde creates a book where l’art pour l’art is the main theme, and this book is in the same vain as its story. The complexity here almost borders on meta-fiction. Through this part of the preface and novel, we see that there again, is no contradiction between the novel and preface.
One of the biggest things, and the most controversial about this topic, is the concept of morality, and its connection to the book. How can a book that claims art for art’s sake is correct, then show the same idea ruin the lives of many people, be right? Dorian, Henry, and Basil all believe in l’art pour l’art in some way, shape or form, and it ruins the lives of two of them. Basil dies because of the principle, even though it is because Dorian’s own personal take on the idea, rather than Basil’s take. But you could argue that Basil’s philosophy on it lead him to the point of his own death, because if he wasn’t so obsessed with Dorian’s beauty, and the creation of this “new form” of art, he would never have created the cursed portrait, and introduced him to Lord Henry, who believes in the most extreme version of art for art’s sake, that lead Dorian down a spiraling path that leads him to kill Basil. Not only does Basil die from Dorian’s hands, but so does Dorian himself. If Dorian never went down this path, which leads to the magical painting of him, he never would have gone mad and stabbed the portrait, which kills him. The only one that comes out unharmed is Lord Henry, and we do not find out what becomes of him after their deaths. But the way Lord Henry shrugs off everything else, one can speculate that it wouldn’t affect him much. The whole story might even entertain Henry. This whole book is morally corrupt, and it is all because of what the preface says about art, or so it may seem to many people.
To tackle this issue, you need to compare and contrast the preface, and the concept of morality. Morality, or more commonly referred to in the philosophy world, ethics, is a widely debated topic. There is no one set definition, nor any set of answers to the many questions ethics poses. Ethics is commonly divided into three sub-categories: meta-ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. Applied ethics is how people can achieve their moral goals in specific situations. Normative ethics is the moral questions people ask when they are thinking about how they should act. Meta-ethics is trying to understand the metaphysical concept of ethics, or how we define ethics in general. Meta-ethics is what applies the most to this dilemma.
Every reader of a book has their own set of moral beliefs, and why they believe it, or how they came to that point, also differs. This is why people get different responses out of reading a novel, because they want to inflict their morals onto the supposed moral of the story. Though this is great, because it leads to intimate discussions of a novel, when trying to figure out what the author intended, it is a little different in the case of this particular novel. Right at the beginning, Oscar Wilde gives this particular view on art, and in it, he defines a part of morality, at least in applying it to literature. Wilde states “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all” (preface), and this statement gives us everything we need to know. Morality, as applied to reading a book, doesn't exist. If we are looking for a moral in a book with supposed bad morals, we are doing it wrong. Wilde is suggesting that people should enjoy art for art’s sake, and like the book if it is well written, or dislike it if it is written poorly. When people are trying to say things like the preface contradicts the novel because it shows that the philosophy of l’art pour l’art is poisonous, and hurts people that believe in it, they are disregarding what he said at the beginning of a novel. This novel is written in the context of Wilde believe in this philosophy, and that is how it is formed. Sure, people can claim there are many readings of a book, but if an author makes a preface stating how his book, or all books should be read, at least applied to his own novel he shouldn't be wrong.
Through these reason I have explained why the novel and preface do not contradict each other, but there lies a problem in this. As I quoted in the intro, about people reading into the book at their own discretion can apply to this paper too. By looking so deep into this book to defend the preface, it can be considered that I did the same. I went below the surface, and heavily analyzed this book, and in defense of the preface, I violated it. This is not done for art’s sake. So does l’art pour l’art defeat its own purpose? One can certainly argue that. Not only did this paper defeat the preface, but this book somewhat did the same. When The Picture of Dorian Gray first came out, the reception for it was terrible. People hated the book, thought it was slanderous and morally troubling, and overall it was not received well. It has undergone many edits, to the point where most people are not even reading the original version of the book when they read it. Wilde stuck to his belief, and he did “art for art’s sake”, by writing this book, but it didn't turn out well, and he went back on it by editing it multiple times. All this paints a confusing picture on the philosophy, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter. People can argue that l’art pour l’art is good or bad, and people can have many different moral standpoints on any topic they want, but it still doesn’t mean Wilde is wrong in believing his. He sets a book with a confusing preface, and the books follows that preface. It doesn’t matter that the morals in the book are bad, it still is okay in the eyes of Wilde. In the end, this whole topic can be summed up by the last line of the preface.
All art is quite pointless.
When discussing topics like art and morality, it is hard not to get into general philosophy, since they are essentially one in the same. People can talk and debate about philosophy almost endlessly, and enjoy it too. We can see this take place a lot in the novel as well, between Lord Henry, Dorian Gray, and Basil Hallward. Lord Henry’s philosophies are basically what cause the rest of the book. He is the epitome of the preface. Many times throughout the book, he will monologue about his ideas on beauty, society, art, and other topics. One example of this is when Henry defends himself against Basil during an argument, “I make a great difference between people. I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their good intellects” (Wilde 11). To tie that quote in with the preface, we have this line “Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are cultivated. For these there is hope” (Preface), which explains Henry’s and Dorian’s friendship really well. Throughout the book, Dorian Grey is described as incredibly beautiful. At first, he is considered innocent, but with Henry’s influence, and a mystical wish, he remains beautiful as his soul becomes dark. According to the preface, Dorian’s dark soul should not matter, because he is beautiful. Henry chooses him as a friend because of his beauty, and since he is finding Dorian’s inner beauty because of his outer beauty, he is doing well. Lord Henry even explains this. After learning about Dorian’s background, he says “Yes; it was an interesting background. It posed the lad, made him more perfect as it were” (33). Even though Dorian has such a complex and dark background, he is still beautiful to Henry. And when Dorian leads his own life down a spiraling path, Henry still continues to watch and approve of what he does. In this essence, there is no contradiction between the preface and novel.
Basil Hallward is a character that also embodies the preface, but in a different way. While Henry is the preface in almost every way, Basil is the opposite. He detests almost everything Henry says. The only connection to the preface he has is him with his art. Basil becomes so obsessed with Dorian, his beauty, and the art he wants to make, that it will eventually put a strain on their relationship. Basil explains to Henry “What the invention of oil-painting was to the Venetians… and the face of Dorian Gray will some day be to me…his personality has suggested to me an entirely new manner of art” (12). This idea fits in with several ideas in the preface. The first line says “The artist is the creator of beautiful things” (preface), and since Dorian is a beautiful man, he is a creator of beautiful things. But it isn’t only that, it is much more. Basil is so captivated by Dorian, that on a metaphysical level, he believes he created a new form of art. “The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things” (preface), and that is exactly what Basil, at least believes he does. Basil is consumed by the beauty of Dorian, the portrait almost captures that essence of beauty, and Basil becomes the aforementioned critic. This connection between the preface and novel mirrors what Oscar Wilde is trying to accomplish. Wilde’s preface presents the idea that he has seen the true essence of art, or at least just literary forms, and in writing this books that is all about the preface, creates the art that the preface mentions. Wilde creates a book where l’art pour l’art is the main theme, and this book is in the same vain as its story. The complexity here almost borders on meta-fiction. Through this part of the preface and novel, we see that there again, is no contradiction between the novel and preface.
One of the biggest things, and the most controversial about this topic, is the concept of morality, and its connection to the book. How can a book that claims art for art’s sake is correct, then show the same idea ruin the lives of many people, be right? Dorian, Henry, and Basil all believe in l’art pour l’art in some way, shape or form, and it ruins the lives of two of them. Basil dies because of the principle, even though it is because Dorian’s own personal take on the idea, rather than Basil’s take. But you could argue that Basil’s philosophy on it lead him to the point of his own death, because if he wasn’t so obsessed with Dorian’s beauty, and the creation of this “new form” of art, he would never have created the cursed portrait, and introduced him to Lord Henry, who believes in the most extreme version of art for art’s sake, that lead Dorian down a spiraling path that leads him to kill Basil. Not only does Basil die from Dorian’s hands, but so does Dorian himself. If Dorian never went down this path, which leads to the magical painting of him, he never would have gone mad and stabbed the portrait, which kills him. The only one that comes out unharmed is Lord Henry, and we do not find out what becomes of him after their deaths. But the way Lord Henry shrugs off everything else, one can speculate that it wouldn’t affect him much. The whole story might even entertain Henry. This whole book is morally corrupt, and it is all because of what the preface says about art, or so it may seem to many people.
To tackle this issue, you need to compare and contrast the preface, and the concept of morality. Morality, or more commonly referred to in the philosophy world, ethics, is a widely debated topic. There is no one set definition, nor any set of answers to the many questions ethics poses. Ethics is commonly divided into three sub-categories: meta-ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics. Applied ethics is how people can achieve their moral goals in specific situations. Normative ethics is the moral questions people ask when they are thinking about how they should act. Meta-ethics is trying to understand the metaphysical concept of ethics, or how we define ethics in general. Meta-ethics is what applies the most to this dilemma.
Every reader of a book has their own set of moral beliefs, and why they believe it, or how they came to that point, also differs. This is why people get different responses out of reading a novel, because they want to inflict their morals onto the supposed moral of the story. Though this is great, because it leads to intimate discussions of a novel, when trying to figure out what the author intended, it is a little different in the case of this particular novel. Right at the beginning, Oscar Wilde gives this particular view on art, and in it, he defines a part of morality, at least in applying it to literature. Wilde states “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all” (preface), and this statement gives us everything we need to know. Morality, as applied to reading a book, doesn't exist. If we are looking for a moral in a book with supposed bad morals, we are doing it wrong. Wilde is suggesting that people should enjoy art for art’s sake, and like the book if it is well written, or dislike it if it is written poorly. When people are trying to say things like the preface contradicts the novel because it shows that the philosophy of l’art pour l’art is poisonous, and hurts people that believe in it, they are disregarding what he said at the beginning of a novel. This novel is written in the context of Wilde believe in this philosophy, and that is how it is formed. Sure, people can claim there are many readings of a book, but if an author makes a preface stating how his book, or all books should be read, at least applied to his own novel he shouldn't be wrong.
Through these reason I have explained why the novel and preface do not contradict each other, but there lies a problem in this. As I quoted in the intro, about people reading into the book at their own discretion can apply to this paper too. By looking so deep into this book to defend the preface, it can be considered that I did the same. I went below the surface, and heavily analyzed this book, and in defense of the preface, I violated it. This is not done for art’s sake. So does l’art pour l’art defeat its own purpose? One can certainly argue that. Not only did this paper defeat the preface, but this book somewhat did the same. When The Picture of Dorian Gray first came out, the reception for it was terrible. People hated the book, thought it was slanderous and morally troubling, and overall it was not received well. It has undergone many edits, to the point where most people are not even reading the original version of the book when they read it. Wilde stuck to his belief, and he did “art for art’s sake”, by writing this book, but it didn't turn out well, and he went back on it by editing it multiple times. All this paints a confusing picture on the philosophy, but in the end, it doesn’t really matter. People can argue that l’art pour l’art is good or bad, and people can have many different moral standpoints on any topic they want, but it still doesn’t mean Wilde is wrong in believing his. He sets a book with a confusing preface, and the books follows that preface. It doesn’t matter that the morals in the book are bad, it still is okay in the eyes of Wilde. In the end, this whole topic can be summed up by the last line of the preface.
All art is quite pointless.
