Art for Art's Sake?

After reading about artists who felt that art is created for the sake of the art itself, I thought I'd look at my own work to see if I'd agree. And I realized there cannot be one universal answer. There is art that is aesthetically appealing. And there is art that undoubtedly evokes some sort of emotion, which cannot simply be called art for art's sake.

Here are two examples. The piece on the left is a rendering of an elderly man. I would feel comfortable calling it art for art's sake. But the piece on the left is so much more intriguing. A woman's face melting? There has got to be something behind that. And there is. I was doing a series of distortions for my AP Art concentration, and I needed one more piece to fulfill the requirements. I was going through my drawings to see if I could use any of them as distortions and I came across one of an elderly woman, with wrinkles galore. I knew exactly what to do. I distorted her face to make it look as though pieces of her face were tearing. I wanted to create the image of a woman so dejected she felt as though her entire face was crying. So there is so much more behind it than there is to the first painting of the elderly man. 

I realized that for me, there definitely can be instances of "Art for Art's Sake." But that won't always be the case. Sometimes art, like literature, means something. And it causes the viewer to take a second look. To think a little deeper. To really try and understand what the painting is saying, rather than appreciating the aesthetics of the work.