PHILOSOPHICAL AESTHETICS
v
8/3/2011
F
Abstract
Aesthetics
is one of the branches of philosophy. At face-value, aesthetics appears to be
an obscure branch of philosophy, but the intersection of aesthetics with other
core areas of philosophy such as metaphysics, epistemology and ethics,
underscores the fundamental importance of philosophical aesthetics which
importance have come to appreciation of a new level in contemporary philosophy.
The
aim of this course is to introduce the student to the core issues of aesthetic
such as the question of the nature of arts. These questions in several order
provides a conceptual framework of which each philosopher of arts are embraced.
After the preliminary attempt to define the meaning of this course, we shall
examine the problem of aesthetic experience between metaphysics and pragmatism.
We shall consider the views of philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle,
Heidegger, Collingwood, Bell, and so forth, on the question and nature of arts.
F
Course outline
1.
The Meaning, Object, and
Scope of Aesthetics
2.
Aesthetics, Pragmatism
and Metaphysics
3.
Plato, Art, and Imitation
4.
Aristotle, Art, and
Imitation
5.
Collingwood, Art, and Expression
6.
Bell, Art, and Form
7.
Priesthood, Vocation and Judgment
8.
Conclusion, Revision, and
Exams
F
The Meaning, Object, and
Scope of Aesthetics
As already mentioned in the description of
the course, aesthetics at face-value, appears to be an obscure branch of
philosophy. However, this impression could be misleading, for in truth,
aesthetics is very important branch of philosophy. We cannot over emphasize the
importance of aesthetics in the philosophical spectrum. As a branch of
philosophy, aesthetics presupposes in a very peculiar manner some of the other
branches of philosophy such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and
socio-political philosophy. Indeed, several of the issues that arise in these areas
of philosophy appear to evoke a re-emergence of aesthetics within the spectrum
of philosophical scenes. Having said that, the important question is aesthetics
to be understood?
F
What is Aesthetics?
Aesthetics
as a branch of philosophy involves a systematic philosophizing about arts. It
is concerned with the analysis of concepts and finding solutions to the
philosophical problems that arise when we contemplate aesthetic objects.
Aesthetic objects in this sense, comprises
of all the objects of aesthetic experience. Any philosophical analysis or
reflection that has aesthetic objects and experience as its preoccupations must
therefore be regarded as philosophical aesthetics. Aesthetics must therefore be seen as a critical
analysis of the nature of experience. In this critical analysis of experience,
philosophy relies on the instrumentality of reason. Aesthetics is not different
from the other branches of philosophy. It seeks to elucidate the structure of
reality or experience. The same can be said of all other areas of philosophy.
This does not imply that there is no difference between aesthetics and other
areas of philosophy but they all involve the use of reason in an attempt to
elucidate the structure of reality and experience.
Philosophical aesthetics however, is
unique in the sense that the reality or experience it tries to elucidate is
ramified. In other words, it has so many components. Aesthetics is like other
areas of philosophy but do not deal with the entire domain of reality as such.
It deals with limited aspect of philosophy just like other aspects of
philosophy. The distinctive feature of aesthetics is the particular domain it
focuses on. Just as socio-political philosophy focuses on social political experiences;
philosophy of nature focuses on nature. All these are particular domains of
reality.
Aesthetics therefore concerns itself with
just an aspect of reality and this aspect is what we have called aesthetic
experience. Put broadly, aesthetics investigates the nature or the structure of
aesthetic experience. From the foregoing, it shows that aesthetic is not
metaphysics as we shall see shortly but there is a connection between both of
them just as aesthetics has a connection with other branches of philosophy.
From our exposition so far, it is evident
that we cannot define aesthetics without reference to the concept of aesthetic
experience and the concept of aesthetic experience presupposes aesthetic
object. Without aesthetic object then, we cannot talk of aesthetic experience.
The experience of aesthetic object is what we call aesthetic experience.
Take note. As important as the concept of
aesthetic experience is, it appears that many philosophers are not in agreement
as regards the concept of aesthetic experience. There are two broad positions
regarding the structure of the concept of aesthetic experience. The positive
position confirms aesthetic experience while the negative position rejects or
refutes it. These two positions are represented by the analytic tradition in
philosophy and the continental philosophical traditions. According to the
analytic philosophers, the essence of philosophy is the analysis of concepts or
language. On the contrary, without undermining the importance of philosophical
analysis, the continental philosophers, opines that the essence of philosophy
is not just about analysis of concept but indeed philosophy can be a
substantial discourse on the nature of reality. If that is the case, it
therefore means that the two positions do divide our discussion of
philosophical aesthetics. The two divide will support the notion of aesthetics
but the problem is that we may have a difficult significance of what the notion
of aesthetic is all about.
Philosophical aesthetics will be possible
if we limit ourselves to the analysis we make in respect to concepts such as:
·
The orchard is beautiful
·
The woman is beautiful
·
The man is handsome
These
are all aesthetic propositions. The pertinent question that arises from these
however is: what are the criteria for determining what is beautiful? What are
the criteria for determining what is handsome? In other words, what does it
really mean when we say that the orchard is beautiful? Or that the woman is
beautiful? What are the criterions for these propositions? These are matters
that involve philosophical analysis as these analyses will engage in
philosophical aesthetics. This is the very issue that philosophical analysis. Aesthetic
experience is a distinctive species which will involve one in the metaphysical
speculation. In denying the reality of aesthetic experience, they now initiate
the notion of analysis of aesthetic experience.
v
15/3/2011
From our previous discussion, we observed
the different views of the analytic and continental philosophy with regards to
aesthetic experience. According to the analysts, the essence of philosophy is
the analysis of concepts or language. On the contrary, the continental
philosophers, opines that the essence of philosophy is not just about analysis
of concept but indeed philosophy can be a substantial discourse on the nature
of reality.
However, it must be made clear that the
essence of philosophy is not only analysis. This gives us the rectitude for
speculating…………
The consequence of this is that as much as
the philosophical analysis of aesthetics statement is part of aesthetic
experience, this will involve the nature of understanding aesthetic experience.
This view presupposes that there is something called aesthetic experience and
this would affect the nature of aesthetics. The nature of philosophy and the
nature of aesthetics are not necessarily opposed. We can have both positions.
If we deny the importance of aesthetic experience, it would be rather
restrictive. It appears that the view that is more reasonable is the views that
integrate both concepts.
Philosophical aesthetics can be defined as
philosophical analysis of aesthetic experience. We can approach this by
introducing the nature of aesthetic judgment which presupposes aesthetic
experience and aesthetic object except one is driven by positivists purposes
which says everything can be reduced to the ideals of science.
An important implication in the rejection
of the statues of the defect as whether or not anything can be designate as
aesthetic experience, whether or not the matter is that aesthetic experience…….
v
The concept of aesthetic
experience
Aesthetic
experience presupposes an aesthetic object. This implies that aesthetic objects
are objects of aesthetic experience. Anything that provokes aesthetic
experience, in so far as it is a thing, qualifies therefore as an aesthetic
object. The concept of aesthetic experience is very broad but often it is
delimited to works of art. Very often philosophical aesthetics is presented as
a philosophical reflection on the nature of arts.
Aesthetics
is a philosophical analysis or philosophical reflection on arts. The question here
then is “is art aesthetic object or not?” As far as one engages in an art work,
one engages in philosophical aesthetics which provokes aesthetic experience. In
this sense, we can say that philosophical aesthetics is philosophy of arts. If
art works are aesthetic objects, then art works qualifies to be philosophical
aesthetics. Philosophy of art is a department of philosophical aesthetics. However,
there are objects of philosophical aesthetics that are not works of art since
philosophical aesthetics is a broad concept. This implies that the concept of
philosophical aesthetics cannot be limited to works of art alone. Works of
nature can also be an object of aesthetic experience.
There
is therefore a distinction between the works of human creativity and the works
of nature. Works of human creativity is referred to as works of art. Works of
nature however, is different from works human creativity. Works of nature and
the works of human creativity therefore constitute the two categories of
aesthetic experience. Often Philosophical aesthetics is narrowed down to works
of art alone but philosophical aesthetics goes beyond works of art. It embraces
both works of art and works of nature.
As
already mentioned, philosophical aesthetics is often presented as synonymous
with philosophy of arts. From the
forgoing however, it becomes evident that the scope of philosophical aesthetics
is much broader because it includes both philosophy of nature and philosophy of
art. The one that has lately occupied the minds of aestheticians is the work of
arts and the reason is understandable since it is the work man.
NB.
·
Philosophical aesthetics
is the philosophical reflection on the nature of arts.
·
Philosophy of arts as
philosophy of nature reflects philosophical aesthetics since philosophy of arts
can be called works of human creativity and philosophy of nature can be called
work of nature that is, the divine.
·
Neither philosophy of art
nor philosophy of nature can constitute the totality of philosophical
aesthetics alone
·
The material object of
works of nature or philosophy of nature is ‘nature’ while the material object
of philosophy of arts or work of human creativity is ‘arts’ or ‘creativity’.
Works
of Nature
Philosophy of Nature
F
Relationship between
Aesthetics and Epistemology
There
is a close affinity between aesthetics and epistemology. Many of the questions
that occur in aesthetics also occur in epistemology although in a different
form. Aesthetics deals with aesthetic values in art while epistemology deals
with our knowledge claims. It seeks answer as to the scope and the limit of the
human knowledge. Epistemology investigates what we know; how we know what we
know and what justification we have for our knowledge claims.
The
affinity between aesthetics and epistemology was sharpened at the beginning of
the modern period as a result of the subjective turn (Epistemological turn)
that Kant’s Copernican Revolution paradigmatically puts forward. This turn of
epistemology as 1st philosophy, that is, epistemology becomes a
point of departure for addressing other philosophical sciences became a point
of departure in addressing metaphysical issues. The nature of reality cannot be
determined without knowing it. This in turn has consequences for aesthetics so
that modern aesthetics has problems to grapple with objectivity of the nature
of aesthetic value, of the nature of aesthetic judgment. The problem of
objective knowledge first occurred in epistemology. This issue finds a parallel
expression in aesthetics. We can see this in some of the basic questions that
aesthetics preoccupies itself with. This shows the influence of epistemology on
aesthetics; for example; the question of the basis or the grounds of aesthetic
judgment. This is strictly an epistemological problem applied to aesthetic
value.
It
is sufficient to note that when we make such judgments that the table is black
or the Seminarian is on pastoral work or the Seminarian is very intelligent,
all are judgment. The epistemic issues here are the following:
·
How do we know that the
seminarian is intelligent?
·
Is the judgment
objective?
·
What are/is the evidence
to prove he is intelligent? Otherwise the judgment is subjective.
But it is obvious that the judgment can be
objective or subjective. The judgment again can be positive or negative. So we
find a similar situation in aesthetics (the problem of subjectivism in
judgment). Why do we say for instance that the woman is beautiful? Thus, in
aesthetics, the epistemic question is as to whether whatever we believe is the
case. It is of particular relevance in determining aesthetic value. To a large
extent, aesthetics will require the service of epistemology and the question
that arises in relation to aesthetic judgment are similar to the questions that
arise as such in the domain of epistemology.
Note: Aesthetics is not epistemology even
though the connection between the two is evident. So, when we claim the woman
is beautiful, we want to be clear whether our claim is backed up with evidence
and objectivity of value. Each of the sub-discipline discussed has its
technical dimension.
F
Relationship between
Aesthetics and Ethics
Just
as aesthetics is related to epistemology, it also has a bearing on ethics as
well. Aesthetics is not ethics and vice-versa. Aesthetics is concerned about
the systematic reflection on the nature of arts and its beauty. Ethics on the
other hand is concerned with moral values, good and evil; it seeks answer to
the question of what constitutes moral goodness and moral evil. There is an
intersection between aesthetics and ethics because aesthetics is also concerned
with values, especially the value of art. Judgments of aesthetic values are not
ethically neutral. When we apply good to an aesthetic object, we are ethical in
appraisal. The work of art in itself is either good or bad. So the work of art
can be judged extrinsically as good or bad. It is not intrinsically judged,
which means that aesthetics may not operate in isolation. It may be constrained
by ethics.
But
from the positive sense, a work of art may contribute to moral formation and on
a negative sense the work or art may affect people’s way of life. So when we
relate a work of art to the moral implication, it may engender them to become
ethical or not. So it is not enough to say that the art work is beautiful, example,
the beauty of a naked woman attracts men because of her structure which appeals
to men. But ethically this is dangerous and scandalous because of the ethical
implication of nudity. Hence ethics has a bearing on aesthetics just as
epistemology has.
Furthermore,
there are ethical issues that arise from the nature of aesthetic art in
relation to individual morality and most importantly for the society at large.
We cannot talk of works or art without talking of its impact on the individual
and on the society at large. An art work can provoke individuals to morality or
immorality. A typical example that comes to mind here is pornography.
Pornography
is a work of art and has aesthetic value but its values are immoral and evil to
the individual and to the society at large. The immoral value of it can result
in pre-marital sex, unwanted pregnancies, abortion and even death. These evils
in turn affect the general society at large. The watching of the African Magic
on the television can affect family life to such extent as to lead to a total
breakdown of family values. Both parents and children are so much taken up by
these movies that parents neglect their duties towards the children.
F
Relationship between
Aesthetics and Ontology.
Ontology
is a branch of metaphysics which deals with the structure of being or
existence. We have so many models of cosmology. Ancient philosophers used
speculation to understand the nature of the universe and to determine what
there is while modern philosophers use philosophy of perception to determine
what there is. In contemporary philosophy, we find aesthetic model in use to
determine cosmology.
This
is why Rorty is saying we should redefine philosophy. That instead of seeing
philosophy from its traditional understanding (finding the universal foundation
of knowledge), what is the purpose of philosophical discourse if it is not that
of saying how things are? Rorty’s answer is that philosophy is an edifying
discourse. So by implication of Rorty’s definition of philosophy, we can go
from art to the nature of reality. Art becomes a model of ontological inquiry.
The model of art into ontological reality is certainly going to lead to a kind
of relativism. For instance, many things in contemporary world look good at
face value but they are very dangerous when appreciated critically, example,
look at democracy.
v
22/3/2011
F
Aesthetics, Pragmatism
and Metaphysics.
There is a controversy regarding the
reality of esthetic experience, that is, whether there is anything that can be
substantively referred to as aesthetic experience. What is clear is that the
burden is on the one who affirms the reality of aesthetic experience to tell us
what it is. As already mentioned in the course of this lecture, one way of
looking at philosophical aesthetics is that philosophical aesthetics involves a
critical reflection on the nature of aesthetic experience. The assumption is
that there is something that is substantively regarded as aesthetic experience.
Philosophical aestheticians have
preoccupied themselves with the definition of aesthetic experience – If it does
exist, what is it? Beyond the controversy, the fundamental challenge is to tell
us what it is, how to define it, what is its nature? It is pointless saying
that there is such an experience without telling us what the nature is like.
Those who belong to the analytic school
will not have that problem since they have jettisoned the idea of aesthetic
experience. The first thing is that aesthetic experience is a form of
experience. This implies that there are different forms of experiences. Just as
we can talk of aesthetic experience as a form of experience, we equally can
speak of religious experience as a form of experience. We can talk of cognitive
experience as a form of experience - these are forms of experiences. Understanding what experience is will enable
us to understand what aesthetic experience is. However, that may not be
sufficient since there is something unique that distinguishes aesthetic
experience from other forms of experience.
The attendant question then is: what
characterizes aesthetic experience as a form of experience? What do we mean by
experience? The first thing about the
nature of experience whether aesthetics, religious or cognitive, is that there
is a presupposition of two basic polarities. We can talk about the subject of experience
and the object of experience. The object of the experience refers to that of
which we have experience; on the other hand, the subject of the experience is
the one who have the experience.
Secondly, the assumption is that there is
a relationship between the object and the subject of experience and this can be
said regarding any form of experience whether aesthetic, religious, cognitive
or moral experience so far as it is a form of experience – this is a rather
general characterization. The experience of the object by the subject is what
is called aesthetic experience. The object is therefore in relation with the
subject. In other words, the object has an impact on the subject. This means
that the object can provoke the subject. It is this openness that is being
affected by the object that makes aesthetic reality possible. There is
interplay between the two polarities involved – without the two polarities; we
cannot talk of aesthetic experience or other forms of experience.
We still have to go back to the features
it share, that is, subject/object duality. If experience implicates the
subject/object duality, what is the relationship between object/subject in
other forms of experiences? The nature of the relationship in object/subject is
not peculiar as in other forms of experience.
In other forms of experience or in an
ordinary nature of the form so experience, the belief is that in the ordinary
sense, relationship between object/subject, the object depends on the subject.
The privilege lies in the side of the subject since the object is dependent on
the subject. It does imply that in conceptualizing the notion of experience the
unity of experience is the unity of the subject. The relationship between object/subject
is resolved in favour of the subject. The subject invariably is part of the object
and the object invariably is part of the subject.
It is not sufficient to say that in
experience, there subject and the object but there is relationship between the
subject and the object. In the ordinary sense, the object is dependent on the
subject but in aesthetics, is it so?
Aesthetic experience talk of subject/object but more importantly, the
role the subject plays on the object and vice versa, that is, the relationship
between the two polarities. This in a way is what differentiates aesthetic
experience from other forms of experience like religious, cognitive, and
morality.
The unity of the subject is the unity of
the subject or the integrity of the being of the subject and the integrity of
the being of the object. If object and subject are related what is the ground
for their unity or relation? Can you locate the unity of the relationship
between object and subject in the object? No, and that is the reason why the
privilege belong to the subject but can we locate it in subject? Yes,
ordinarily. The ground between the relationship between the object and the
subject is not in either of the two. The dichotomy between object and subject
is aesthetic experience is supplanted in a more embracive unity – the object is
not for the subject neither the subject is for the object
Note that in aesthetic experience, you are
experiencing the object not because you are experiencing the object but you are
experiencing the object because the object is there. The object is there even
before you came in contact with the object. The object reflects the unity that
cannot be reduced to that of the subject. Also the subject manifests the same
unity just like the object, so there is more embracing code in which the object
and the subject are included. In aesthetic experience the subject have a
peculiar comportment for the object; we merely speak of the subject as relating
to the object. Aesthetic would be difference from the pragmatic experience
because it recognizes the indivisible claims……..
Aesthetic experience is non-relational
experience as distinguished from what is in relational experience. Aesthetic
experience witnesses a suspension of this subject/object framework. The
emphasis is not on the object/subject relationship but to look beyond the
object/subject relationship.
v
26/3/2011
So
far we have been trying to characterize the nature of aesthetic experience by
comparing it with other forms of experiences. This we have tried to achieve by
underlining the diverging line between aesthetic experience and others
experiences, in other words, we have tried to distinguish what makes aesthetic
experience a unique one. This is primarily with regards to the relationship
between object and subject.
The
main distinctive feature between aesthetic and pragmatic attitude has to do
with the mode of relation between the subject and the object. In aesthetic
attitude, the subject allows the object to be free. In other words, the subject
does not impose himself on the object rather; it recognizes that the object has
an intrinsic value. The object in this form of attitude reveals itself to the
subject. The relationship between the subject and the object in aesthetic
attitude is therefore one of contemplation. The subject contemplates the object
as it were. Aesthetic attitude is disinterested, holistic and detached from the
object. The subject relates to the object devoid of any form of self-interest
and views the object as it in itself. The subject does not experience the
object as for itself; on the contrary, the subject experiences the object as
object in itself.
Pragmatic
attitude on the other hand is the opposite of aesthetic attitude. Pragmatic
attitude imposes itself on the object. It sees the object from a utilitarian
point of view. The subject relates to the object from a self interest point of
view. It doesn’t allow the object to reveal itself as it is in itself.
Pragmatic attitude is not holistic but views the object from a personal point
of interest. In this case the subject is not open to object. To have aesthetic
experience therefore, we need to overcome the pragmatic attitude.
v
29/3/2011
Recapitulation
So
far we have tried to characterize the nature of aesthetic experience by
comparing it with other forms of experience. We noted that the divergence
between aesthetic experience and other forms of experience pertains to the
nature of the subject/object relationship. In aesthetic experience, it is
…..but transcended in the sense that the unity of the two is prior. The object
cannot be reduced to the subject.
The
issue concerns the mode of the relationship between object/subject is peculiar
such that the subject relates to the object as it is in itself. This can be
formulated in terms of the particular attitude that defines it, namely
aesthetic attitude and the condition of aesthetic can be found in the
relationship between aesthetic attitude and aesthetic experience.
There
are forms of attitude that are not aesthetic and this can also involve the
contrast which is the pragmatic attitude – which helps to describe aesthetic
experience negatively as regards what it is not.
F
Plato, Art and Imitation
We
now have look at Plato’s account of art as imitation. Before now, our concern
has been to understand the meaning, object, scope and nature of aesthetics
experience and its attendant questions. In the present context however, it is
the question of art that we shall be considering. Various theories have been
advanced to account for the purpose of art. In what follows, we shall limit
ourselves to only to a few of such theories such as the theory of art as
expression as purported by Collingwood, the theory of art as Form as purported
by Clive Belle, and the theory of art as imitation by Plato and Aristotle.
As
we probably know by now, Plato is one of the key pillars of western philosophy.
As Whitehead puts it, the whole of western philosophy can be regarded as
footnote to Plato. This is to suggest the influence of Plato as far as western
philosophy is concerned. Plato contributed to virtually every department of the
philosophical discipline but our concern presently is his contribution to the
field of aesthetics. The question that Plato addressed is the question as to
the purpose of art. This is the context of Plato’s imitation theory of art.
According
to Plato, the purpose of art is imitation. Plato’s theory of art as imitation
is to address the fundamental question of art this would touch upon the
question of the nature of aesthetic experience and others such as the relation
between aesthetics and epistemology, aesthetics and ethics. All of these issues
find a place in Plato’s account of art as imitation.
In
attempt to address the basic ramification theories of Plato’s account of art as
imitation, the first thing to note is that they are not explicitly mentioned
but there is a correlation between Plato’s metaphysics and his aesthetics. The
aspect of his metaphysics relevant for this is his metaphysical dualism and his
interpretation of the human person (psychology) and politics. The tripartite
division of the nature of the soul and these are all implicated on Plato’s
dualism. Our focus is not on these but on art as imitation.
Plato’s
metaphysical dualism has to do with his theory of Forms, what he calls the
world of Form and the world of Appearance.
According to him, real world is the world of Forms containing the real
essences of the world of particulars or world of appearance. Plato did not deny
the existence of the world of particulars but he maintained that the world of
particular and appearances contains partial realities as compared to world of
Forms which enjoys the fullness of reality. According to him, the world of
appearances or particulars is a world of imitation and change. The ideal
essences are universal, eternal, and immutable. On the contrary, the world of
appearances is a world of imitation, and particular.
The
theory of Form is all about the nature of reality. Plato divides reality into
two – the world of Form and the world of appearance or particulars. What is
important here is not what we have said so far, but the concept of the
relationship between the two worlds. This relationship is explained in terms of
participation. The world of particulars imitates and participates in the world
of Form which has the fullness of reality.
v
31/3/2011
From
our discussion thus far, we have made it clear that Plato’s aesthetic has a
metaphysical background. To understand his aesthetic account therefore, it
becomes necessary that we should have a grasp of his metaphysics.
F
Art as Imitation
To
say that art is an imitation implies that art is not original in itself but
imitates something else. What then does art imitate? Art imitates reality. But
which reality? According to Plato, there are universal reality and particular
reality. Which of these does art imitates? Art imitates both the universal and
the particular realities. In imitating the particular reality, art works
imitates the universal reality which the particular is a representative. Art
imitates the universal reality in the particular. The being of the particular
participates in the being of the universal. For every particular reality in the
world of particulars, there is a corresponding form in the universal. We cannot
understand the particular without reference to its corresponding form in the
universal form where the Ideal Form of the particular resides.
Art
work is an imitation or representation of a particular thing which in turn is
an imitation of the universal reality. For instance, a picture of a bird is a
representation of a particular bird and the particular bird in turn is a
representation of the Ideal bird in the world of Forms. In this sense, art work
is therefore a double imitation since it represents a particular thing which in
turn represents the universal of Ideal Form. When Plato says that art is an
imitation, what he is actually meant is this double standard of imitation.
Plato’s account of art as imitation is therefore permeated by his theory of
Forms.
The
nature of art work can be approached from two angles: the art as it is in
itself and as it relates to the society. For Plato, art should not be allowed
to commute in the society without being censured.
F
Art and Knowledge
Can
we say that art is a vehicle of knowledge? If yes, to what extent? Does art
lead to truth? If it leads to truth, it will obviously lead us to reality but
if it does not, then it will away from reality. The question then is: whether
art leads us to reality?
According
to Plato, the object of true knowledge is the world of Form. For him, reason
alone remains the instrumentality by which we arrive at true knowledge.
Particular thing which operates through the senses cannot give us complete
knowledge but partial knowledge. We
acquire true knowledge when we contemplate reality through the instrumentality
of pure reason. Art work can give us knowledge in so far as it connected to
reality. But since art involves a double connection to particulars, it cannot
give us knowledge of reality. Art work is deceptive because it appeals to the
sensual part of man and not to reason. Art promotes irrationality rather than
rationality. Take pornographic art for instance. If one watches pornography, it
rouses his emotions and emotions do not appeal to reason. The impact of
pornography is such that the viewer would want to practicalize what he had seen
and in most case, he does things he would not have done ordinarily is he was himself.
It
is in this context that art can lead to disorder both in the life of the
individual person that watches it and in the society at large. This explains
why Plato recommends that art should be censured. Art does not lead to the use
of reason and if it promoted, the well-being of the individual and that of the
society would be greatly hampered.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
F Aristotle’s
Account of Aesthetics – Synopsis
The
principal source of our knowledge of Aristotle's aesthetic and literary theory
is the Poetics, but
important supplementary information is found in other treatises, chiefly the Rhetoric, the Politics, and the Nicomachean
Ethics. As expressed in these works, Aristotelian aesthetics directly contradicts
Plato's negative view of art by establishing a potent intellectual role for
artistic imitation. For Plato, as for Aristotle, art was essentially a matter
of imitation, an imitation of nature.
However, Plato's
negative view of art stems from, his view that a work of art is at least three
steps removed from truth. Plato was particularly concerned with the cognitive
aspect of art, feeling that it had the effect of distorting knowledge because
it was removed several steps from reality. According to him (Plato), artistic imitation
addresses itself essentially to the emotional, rather than the intellectual,
aspect of the human psyche and thus dangerously subverts the character of both
the individual and the state.
Aristotle,
on the other hand, believing that the Form exist only in particular things,
felt that the artist is dealing directly with the universal when he studies
things and translates them into art forms. For this reason, he affirmed the
cognitive value of art, saying that since art does imitate nature, it therefore
communicates information about nature and in contemplating it; men find
themselves learning and gathering the meaning of things, example, that the man
there is so-and-so[1].
Based on this, Aristotle affirmed that “Imitation is
natural to man from childhood, and constitutes one of his advantages over the
lower animal; namely, that he (man), is the most imitative creature in the
world, and learns at first by imitation. And it is also natural for all to
delight in works of imitation”[2]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
v
1/4/2011
F
Aristotle
The
brief assessment we have done, sets up the stage for Aristotle. This is because
you cannot assess Plato without Aristotle. So it is important to say that our
assessment of Plato is an introduction to Aristotle.
So
like Plato, a central concern of Aristotle is to address the question of art.
This issue as we have seen has many ramifications and they are all
interpenetrated. The focus defines Aristotle’s concern of art. It is on his
poetics that Aristotle offers an account of the nature of art as imitation.
Aristotle’s view is heavily influenced by Plato. This is not surprising because
he was a student of Plato. Upon graduation however, Aristotle began to develop
his own view.
In
Plato and Aristotle therefore, classical Greek philosophy which started with
Thales attained a certain synthesis. Given that Plato and Aristotle are
comparable s philosophical twins, it means that the view of one defines the
other. This is evident in virtually all their works.
But
our concern is on Aristotle’s account of art as imitation which is
metaphysically loaded and influenced by Plato. So he is fully aware of the
troubles that bedeviled Plato’s position; so he sets out correct that. It can
therefore be claimed that even if there is a point of reference, there is a
point of divergence and this is evident in their metaphysics.
In
his concern to determine the place of art in society, Plato attacked poets in
developing this theory of art as imitation. On the other hand, Aristotle
defends poets. The main difference between Plato and Aristotle is one of
metaphysics and this difference will condition their respective views on the
nature of art in the society. This makes Aristotle’s concept or attitude
towards art positive while that of Plato is negative. The question then is
“what then, is the metaphysical framework that drives Aristotle’s defense of
art?”
The
framework lies in Plato’s dualism of appearance and reality – the world of Form
and the world of Particulars. This is the milieu that Plato’s attitude of art
stems from. It is to this milieu that Aristotle returns so as to address the
problem.
The
aspect of Plato’s metaphysics that Aristotle finds problematic is the problem
of the particular and the universal. The problem is on how to account for the
two worlds – the world of Form (Universals) and the world of Appearance
(Particulars). Aristotle is not quite happy with Plato’s dualism. As a result, Aristotle
holds that it is the universal in the particular that makes the particular what
it is. Aristotle’s problem with Plato’s metaphysical dualism is the separation
of the two worlds. According to him, if the two categories occupy separate
worlds, it will be difficult to account for relationship between the two
worlds. For Aristotle then, the Form should not exist in a separate world but
the Form (Universals) exists in the particular. Put simply, the Universal is
the particular. So Aristotle in substance is a correction of Plato’s dualism.
Aristotle’s position does not reject the Universal but he is saying that the
universal is inherent in the particular.
According
to Aristotle, the implication of Plato’s dualism is that there is a tripartite
categorization such that the particular thing that the art work imitates is
about an imitation of another thing of another thing which is the universal
(Form). For Aristotle however, there is a bi-categorization (double). The art
work represents a particular thing which itself is the real thing. For
Aristotle, the real thing is the original given that Aristotle’s metaphysics is
monistic other than Plato’s metaphysical dualism. Aristotle says that the
universal and the particular cannot be separated and so the particular is the
universal. And this universal and particular that are inseparable is a reality;
that is, the reality as reality. This he called the substance. The substance
has both the universal and the particular. So when the art work imitates the
particular object, it is the universal in the particular that it imitates. By
implication, this means that the art work imitates the original in the
particular. At this point therefore, the question could be raised as to the
implication of this to his epistemology.
For
Aristotle, artistic representation leads to reality since the object of
representation is the reality in question. For him, art does not involve any
falsification of reality. However, artistic representation does not embody the
fullness of reality. Conceptual representation is higher than artistic
representation. This implies that there is a difference between art and
philosophy. Philosophy deals with conceptual representation while art deals
with visual representation.
F
Recapitulation
The
universal is inherent in the particular. The universal belongs to the unit of
the particular even as the distinction between the universal and the particular
remains intact. He also answer that there is correction of Plato’s metaphysics
of Forms has repercussion for Aristotle’s conception of the nature of knowledge
to the effect that there is no dualism between appearance and reality. The
object of true knowledge remains the universal but now the universal in the
particular but there is no distinction between the universal and the
particular. In effect, sense perception for Aristotle is knowledge. It may not
be full knowledge but that does not mean it cannot lead to knowledge. The goal
of knowledge is to take possession of the universal in the particular. Let us
now examine how this metaphysic and epistemology would impact on Aristotle’s
form of art.
1.
For Aristotle, the object
of imitation by art is the particular reality. Every particular is also a
substance. There is no really real between the particular and the object.
The question to be
addressed concerns the true status of the artistic representation. Do they
falsify reality? Do they take us closer to reality? For Aristotle, there is no
reason why artistic representation should not lead us to reality since the
object of imitation is the object of true object. Art does not involve any
falsification of reality.
The difference
Aristotle’s made between universal and particular led him to clarify between
artistic and conceptual representation. Conceptual representation gives us true
reality than artistic representation. In other words, philosophy is still
higher than art just as conceptual representation is higher than artistic
representation.
·
Psychological import of
Art.
Another
point worth addressing is the psychological import of art. According to Plato, art
is tied to the particular which can only be accessed through the senses. Hence
art appeals to the lower nature of man – to the emotion rather than to reason.
Since art appeals to the lower nature of the human person, it leads to
disequilibrium both in the human person and to the society at large.
On
the other hand, Aristotle says that the universal is in the particular and the
particular can lead to reality. He therefore sees no reason for condemning
emotion. He rather accentuates the positive dimension of emotion. According to
him, art helps to release tension – catharsis.
The
positions of Plato and Aristotle concerning aesthetics have its backdrop in
their respective metaphysics. According to their respective theories, there is
something negative and positive about art. For Plato, art leads to corruption
of the individual and the society. For Aristotle on the other hand, art has a
therapeutic effect.
The
tension between Plato and Aristotle centers on the role the philosophers and
poets are to play in the society. For Plato, poets should be classed below
philosophers. Aristotle however, feels that Plato had been unjust in his
treatment of poets and he tries to remedy this injustice by acknowledging that
there is an aspect of art which is promoted can lead to the progress of the
individual and the society.
Plato’s
metaphysics has dualistic approach in which he accepts the existence of two
worlds, the world of the universals and the world of the particulars. For
Plato, the universals contain the fullness of reality while the particulars
enjoy partial reality by participating in the universals. For him, the
universals are higher than the particular because it leads to fullness of
reality. Aristotle however, upholds a monistic approach to metaphysics. For his,
both universals and particulars are in the same world. In which case, the
universal is in the particular and the particular is in the universals and both
of them are objects of true reality even though the universal is higher than
the particular; the particular nevertheless, leads to true reality. While Plato’s
account of art is on the negative side, that of Aristotle is on the positive
side.
The pertinent question at
this point is: “If the universal is in the particular, how is the universal
different from the particulars? In his effort to bridge the gap between the
universal and the particular, Aristotle tried to merge the eternal and the
temporal together. On the Aristotelian scheme, we cannot accent for pure
universals. His positive account of art is therefore problematic in the sense
that the universals he postulated are not pure universals. For the universal to
be universal, it must transcend the particular. According to Aristotle’s
account however, the universal cannot transcend the particular and as such
there is no pure universal. If this is the case, then, Aristotle’s account of
the universal is not safe because the universal cannot transcend the particular
and still remain part of the particular.
On the other hand, it
would be a serious problem if the universal cannot be accounted for as pure
universal and distinct from the particular. To account for art as representing
reality partially would mean that one is on the side of Plato. On the contrary,
to account for art as representing reality holistically would imply that one is
on the side of Aristotle. Plato’s and Aristotle’s account of the nature of art
as representing or imitating reality complements one another. One cannot accept
one and reject the other. For Plato, if a person engrosses him/herself in
immoral movies, his/her emotions will motivate the will and that will yield
negative result since the immoral movies watched will influence the emotions which
in turn will influence the will. Plato therefore places reason over emotion.
Aristotle on the other
hand believes that emotions are part of the human nature. Hence he stressed
more on the positive aspect of the human emotions unlike Plato who stressed
more on the negative aspect of the human emotions.
Arguably, art work can
stimulate one’s emotions and those emotions can be either positive or negative.
If the emotions are negative, then, Plato is correct. But if the emotions are
positive, then, Aristotle is correct. The positivity or negativity of one’s
emotions is determined by the individual. Art works can equally have a
formative influence and this too could be positive or negative.
v
14/4/2011
F
Collingwood, Art and
Expression
The
problem of aesthetics centers on the purpose of art. In other words, it
concerns the position which art work occupies in society. This can be answered
in two ways, namely:
a.
Art can be seen as
imitation following the imitation theory according to which art work is said to
imitate reality. Plato as we know is the chief proponent of this theory
followed by Aristotle.
b.
On the other hand, this
question can be addressed by characterizing art as possessing the capacity to
express. This leads us to the theory of art as an expression. This theory
emphasizes that the very nature of art is to express. This does not imply however,
that art do not possess other attributes, rather it seeks to understand art
through its expressive dimension. Proponents of this theory includes Benedicto
Croche – 1866 – 1952 (Italian Philosopher), William Wordsward – 1770 – 1850 (An
English poet and philosopher) and then Robin Collingwood – 1889 – 1943.
In
considering art as expression, it is Robin Collingwood’s version of the theory
that we shall focus our attention. His account of art as is found in his book
titled “The Principles of Art”.
An
important point of consideration is to ask what we really mean when we say that
art is expression. To say that art is an expression implies that art has the
capacity to communicate. But what does art communicate? Art communicates:
·
Emotions
·
Feeling(s)
·
Ideas.
It
is possible for art to communicate emotions, feeling or feelings and ideas.
This shows that expressionists are bound to differ in their account of art as
an expression. The fact is that we can speak of universal and particular
feelings. Particular feelings have to do with the immediate experience of the
present moment while universal feelings have to with the attempt to recollect
past feelings. It is not possible to reconstruct past feelings exactly as they
occurred in the past but we can attempt to recreate them.
For
Collingwood, art communicates universal feelings, emotions and ideas. But whose
feelings does art communicate we may ask? Art communicates both the feelings of
the artist and the societal feelings. Art work therefore communicates both particular
and universal feelings. Primary sense of expression communicates the feelings
of the artist while secondary sense of expression implicates the relationship
between the art and the general public. This means that art work is a vehicle
of communication. It communicates the feelings of the artist which in turn is
projected into the society.
v
19/4/2011
We
have so far considered the meaning of ‘Expression”, as used in relation to art.
We saw that we can speak of art in two senses – primary and secondary sense.
Primary sense indicates the relation between art work and the artists. Here the
artist projects his emotion or feelings unto the art work so that the art work
becomes a vehicle of expression of the emotions of the artist. The secondary sense of the term implicates
the relationship between the art work and the general public. Here the artist
is not the focus of the interrogation of the meaning of art work; the art work
communicates to the public instead. The public does not need to investigate the
intensions of the artist in order to appreciate the art work. The art work so
to speak assumes a life of its own. In this case the art work communicates the
general feelings of the public.
These
two fold senses of expression confront us with the subject/object distinction –
the subject being the artist and the object being the art work. It presupposes
that there is a relationship between the artist and the art work. We cannot
talk about art work without an artist.
Art
work is meant to express a meaning that was not there originally but was put on
it by the artist. How does this relate to Collingwood? First Collingwood used
the term “expression” in the primary sense which indicates the relationship
between the art work and the artist. He uses “expression” in its universalized
meaning. For him, the focus in interrogation art work is the relationship
between art work and the artist. He does not deny that art work can relate to
the general public but that is not his concern here. He is rather concerned
with the correlation between the art work and the artist. The pertinent
question arising from this is: “How does an art work come into being?” The
implication of this question centers on the fact that there could not be an art
work without an artist. The whole process of the coming into being of an art
work therefore has its origin in the subjective domain of the feeling of the
artist. It is the production of the creative imagination of the artist.
Strictly speaking then, without an artist, there can be no art work.
For
Collingwood, therefore, the role of the imagination is very important in the
coming to be of an art work. Imagination according to him is the faculty which
brings particulars together, synthesizes them, and brings out a universal
production. Imagination has the power to go back in the past, retrieve what
happened in the past, reconstruct it and project it into the present and the
future. What helps the artist in working out the art work is the imagination.
v
10/5/2011
v
Bell,
Art and Form
Clive
Bell was born in 1881 and died in 1964. He was an art critique and was
associated with the formalist theorists of art or put simply he was associated
with formalism. He was one of the most prominent proponents of formalism in
aesthetic. Formalism as a theory can be traced back to Kant and it is the view
that what defines the nature an object as an art work are its formal
properties. This would imply that nothing else is relevant in accessing whether
an object is a work o art or not apart from its formal properties. It could be
representation as well and as well vied in its historical context. The
knowledge of the historical work of art such as painting or the intention of
the painter will be considered unnecessary as art work. For the formalist, the
only thing that is necessary is the formal object of art. That is why he is
regarded as the foremost proponent of formalism in aesthetics.
The
mention of the word “Form” reminds us of the classical distinction between
matter and form. Matter refers to the content of a thing (that from which a
thing is made), while form refers to the shape that a thing assumes. The theory
of art as form focuses on the formal attributes of an object. It also
distinguishes between accidental and essential attributes of an object. This
theory isolates the essential formal attribute of an art work. This means there
are non-essential attributes of an art work. For Bell, the most important thing
to be considered in any works of art is the formal qualities. For Clive Bell
then, the theories of art of such as Plato as Imitation, Aristotle as Imitation
and Collingwood as Imitation as unnecessary. What matters in any work of art
are its formal qualities. The name given to this formal, essential attribute by
Bell is “Significant Form”
v
Sources
of Clive Bell’s theory of art.
Bell’s
theory of art could be found in his books titled:
1.
“Art”, which was
published in 1914.
2.
“Civilisation”, published
in 1928.
3.
“Proust” published in
1929.
v
An
excerpt from his book
The
starting point for all systems of aesthetics must be the personal experience of
a peculiar emotion. The object that provokes this emotion we call works of art.
All sensitive people agree that there is a peculiar emotion provoked by art. I
do not mean of course that every art work provokes the same emotion; on the
contrary, every works produces different emotions. But all these emotions are
recognizable by the same in kind. So far, at any rate the best opinion is on my
sight; that there is particular kind of emotion provoked by works of art. And
that this emotion is provoked by every kind of visual arts: by pictures,
sculptors, buildings, textiles etc is not disputed I think, by anyone capable
of feeling it. This emotion is called aesthetic emotion.
And
if we can discover some quality common and peculiar to the entire object that
provokes it, we shall have solved what I take to be the central problem of
aesthetic. We shall have discovered the essential quality in a work of art from
all classes of objects. For either all works of visual art have some common
quality or when we speak of work of art we differ, everyone speaks of art
making a mental classification by which he distinguishes the class of work of
art from all other classes. What is the ‘justification’ for this
classification? What is the quality common and peculiar to all members of this
class? Whatever it is, no doubt, it is often in company with other qualities.
But they are adventitious. It is essential. There must be some one quality
without which a work of art cannot exist possessing each in the least degree no
work is altogether worthless. What is this quality? What quality is shared by
all objects provoking aesthetic emotion?
Bell
distinguishes between what is an art work and what is not; through the emotions
he called aesthetic emotion. In other words, he assumes that there is a class
of objects that is properly designated as works of art. On the other hand,
there is another class of objects that does not deserve to called works of art.
And he is thinking that if he can identify the point of reference for
distinguishing both classes of objects, he is approaching the question of the
purpose of art from the starting of what it is for a thing to be a work of art?
According
to Bell, for a thing to be a work of art presupposes that that object possesses
a peculiar quality. This quality is distinguished as essential quality. So this
essential quality distinguishes it from the class of objects that cannot be
designated as work of art. So what is this essential quality? What is this
essential quality that every work of art must possess? That is, the essential
quality without which an object cannot be considered as work of art? It is in
the attempt to answer this question as to what this essential quality is that
he developed the view of art as form. Bell says that there must be one quality
without which works of art cannot exist. There is also a suggestion that this
essential quality comes with other qualities. It means that the essential
quality is not in isolation.
At
this point it is important to distinguish between essential qualities and accidental
qualities. The assumption is that any object at all must possess a combination
of both accidental and essential qualities. This distinction can easily be associated
with Aristotle’s theory of substance - the theory of matter and form. Matter is
the accidental component of an object while form is the essential component.
The distinction between matter and form therefore is a correlate of the
distinction between essential qualities and accidental qualities. This implies
that every object is a composite of matter and form. Clive Bell is saying that
we disregard accidental qualities and focus on the essential quality in an
attempt to characterize the nature of art work.
According
to Bell, for any work to qualify as an art work, it must be capable of
provoking a personal experience of a peculiar emotion in the subject. Otherwise
such an object does not qualify as an art work.
·
Submission
For
Bell, only one answers it all and that as the ‘significant form”. The
significant form is able to holds everything together. What holds the object
together is not accidental quality or essential quality but the ‘significant
quality’ which encompasses all other qualities.
·
Assessment
Clive
Bell’s theory of art as form leads to subjectivism in a way. If it can provoke
aesthetic emotion in the subject, it provokes in the subject not because the
subject want it but it provokes aesthetic emotion in the subject because the
object is irreducible to the subject. The object in a way transcends the
subject. In other words, Bell is trying to bring transcendence into works of
art through his personal experience which can be termed ‘singularity’ or
singular experience.
Comments
Post a Comment