<P> George Sand wrote in 1872 that L'art pour l'art was an empty phrase, an idle sentence . She asserted that artists had a "duty to find an adequate expression to convey it to as many souls as possible," ensuring that their works were accessible enough to be appreciated . </P> <P> Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that there is no art for art's sake: </P> <P> 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? </P> <P> Contemporary postcolonial African writers such as Leopold Senghor and Chinua Achebe have criticised the slogan as being a limited and Eurocentric view on art and creation . In "Black African Aesthetics," Senghor argues that "art is functional" and that "in black Africa,' art for art's sake' does not exist ." Achebe is more scathing in his collection of essays and criticism entitled Morning Yet on Creation Day, where he asserts that "art for art's sake is just another piece of deodorised dog shit" (sic). </P>

Who coined the term art for art's sake