art for art's sake

just a follow up kinda thing:
kester was talking about the idea of art-for-art's-sake in the late 19th century, increasingly prevailent with the progress of impressionism, which reminded me of wilde. (recall his comment on beauty and artwork in the preface to the picture of dorian gray.) and the time wilde was active as an art reviewer was about 1880's and 1890's, at the tail of impressionism which started off in around the 1870's. so when i asked, kester's reply confirmed that wilde was actually a key figure in the movement of art for art's sake.

then i have to ask, did it become fashionable to hide artists from the work of art again towards the end of impressionism? remember that one of the key features that evolved with maturation of realism was that artists started to demonstrate themselves, their images, their own emotions and perspectives explicitly in their paintings. why, then, in mere 30 or so years' time, wilde was advocating artists' duty to conceal themselves from their painting? i'm missing the link between realism and impressionism, thanks to the class missed on tuesday morning. (it's not a good idea for them to have interesting classes at 8am, cos i'm bound to miss one or two through the quarter.) and it is ironic that i missed the lecture primarily on monet, considering that i had come into this class with the preoccupation of monet as my favourite painter. (i don't necessarily think so any more.) next week we are talking about van gogh, i'd better sleep early and make sure that i don't miss it. and kester shouted at the end of the class today 'come on down van gogh!' like some real fan. lol.