Ja, an "beautiful in itself" hatte ich auch gedacht - aber ehrlich gesagt war das bevor ich merkte, dass ich "ein Detail, für sich und funktionslos schön" überhaupt nicht verstehe. Magst du noch mal den ganzen Satz schicken, Jess?

Also ein Detail, was nicht der Regel "form follows function" folgt, weil es keine Funktion besitzt, sondern l'art-pour-l'art-mäßig "einfach nur schön" ist?
Mit anderen Worten ein Bartel'scher Familienverwutzer? ;-)

"a detail, functionless and beautiful in itself"

Incidentally, Jess, you have both it's and its in your original query. It's = it is / it has so is wrong in this context, of course.

Leider habe ich das Buch nicht mehr (zurück in der Biblithek), es ist Michael Maar, Geister und Kunst, Neuigkeiten aus der Zauberberg. Ich kann nur einen Abschnitt von meinem Aufsatz anbieten.
Doktormutti verlangt, dass kurze deutsche Zitate auf Englisch übersetzt werden.

Danke sehr für die Vorschläge! Hilft wirklich viel

Maar discusses his analytical approach in a section of the first chapter entitled “Schichtentechnik”. Quoting Councillor Behrens’ exposition on the advantages of anatomical knowledge when depicting the human body, Maar argues that Thomas Mann invites the reader to analyse his work (Maar: 13f). Maar regards “dissection” of the text as heuristically valuable, but criticises conventional analysis’ exclusive focus on the deep textual layers (Ibid: 14). His own unconventional approach concentrates on the surface of the text, in particular the “detail” “für sich und funktionslos schön” (Ibid: 16). Maar intends his study of details to enrich the understanding of the text, and claims accordingly that “fast alle […] Details [verraten sich] als Agenten des Zweckes” (Maar: 16). However, he only partly realises this intention, and the heuristic function of the mass of details remains for the most part unclear.

I'm late to the plate, but isn't this:

detail, in and of itself

Maybe a different meaning.

@opine #7: Jess is of the opinion, and I think she's right, that the "für sich" relates to "schön". "in and of itself" would only work, I think, without the "schön".

Essentially agreed, phillipp, beauty is always getting shortchanged.

When I read the passage in #6, I just thought the "schön" may not be necessary, as sometimes the modifier is "built in(to)" the phrase when one uses "in and of itself"?

But, that's crazy opine.

Sorry for any confusion, Jess.

opine, if you don't understand the German, please don't offer a translation .... it just confuses everyone

#10, Please offer a translation. I was honest and I understand the German.

Maybe something along the lines of "beautiful for beauty's sake" or "beautiful just for the sake of it"?

to Spike B - yes, you're right! It's/ its - I wrote in a hurry. If you look at the german in my answer, you'll find even worse mistakes : )

jess, don't worry about mistakes. that will consume you in Leo-land.

what do you want to be conveyed/translated? did you copy-paste #6? sorry to ask.

beautiful in its uselessness

devoid of/lacking function/purpose, intrinsically beautiful
a (simply) (a) beautiful detail without function

'like the lilies of the field' fehlt jetzt noch.

its (sole) raison d'être is beauty