Which scholars argue that for art to be art, it must be for art's sake?

Question

I understand this is partially supported by Nietzsche, but do others agree or adamantly disagree with this position? If so who?

Answer 1

1. Oscar Wilde had a lot to say about this. "No great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to be an artist." Also that painting a portrait is really of yourself and not the sitter, etc. Art for "art's" sake? Does that negate practicality? Maybe, but by doing something that has no practical purpose whatsoever, like doodling a random pattern in your head, you inadvertently solve a quantum mechanics riddle that science has failed to answer. In that way, art is a human need that is not beneath practical concerns but rather above it, in that it can solve practical problems outside of linear (and failed) thinking.
2.