David M. Petersen - Philosophy of Art - Thurs. 4:00 PM - Term Paper
Art, I believe, is the interaction, emotionally or intellectually, of two or more "sentient beings" by using an intermediary medium that has been fashioned in some way for this purpose. Art is therefore a general term, and is of course also a matter of degree. In fact, I believe that it can really be categorized in three ways: as high art, as medium art, and finally, as craft. The way that these distinctions can be made in a fashion that approaches objectivity is by an analysis of how many people the particular art work has an effect on, who are of course sensitive to the form of art in question (painting, sculpture, etc.), and have the background to understand and evaluate it. I will refer to this general idea later in the paper by using the phrase "a significant number of trained people." This paper will be an attempt to put forth a modest system for the general evaluation of any art form in question, one that could be applied once the above 'trained evaluator' condition is met.
In my view, art must be some combination of three basic characteristics, as follows. First off, it clearly can or must involve skill. Secondly, it can or must move more than one person emotionally or spiritually. Lastly, it can or must be innovative; or in other words, it can or must be a new combination/juxtaposition of elements that has not been seen before. I will proceed to further detail these characteristics below. Perhaps the phrase "can or must" is confusing here; this will also become clearer later on, I think.
We begin with the idea that art can or must involve skill. This is fairly obvious, and I will not spend a lot of time belaboring this point. Every one knows that to paint like Michelangelo or Picasso involves skill that takes many years, as well as a special gift in the first place, to perfect. The next two characteristics are a little less obvious, however. The next characteristic of art that we need to explore is the idea that art can or must move more than one person emotionally or spiritually. Leo Tolstoy had the right idea on this point. In his essay "What is Art?" he states that "The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it" (Tolstoy 362). I believe that this is a fundamentally true statement. Of course, whether or not a work of art can reach people always assumes that the people in question have at least a little bit of the historical background and sensitivity needed to appreciate the art-form in the first place.
Although Tolstoy had the right idea about the emotional transfer that takes place in art, I don't think that art can really be used to bring all people together like he thought. Art would actually seem to move groups of people by degrees, the simpler it is and still effective, the broader range of people it can reach emotionally. The more complex, the less number of people it can reach, because of language or cultural background issues. It is clear from his essay that Tolstoy thought that the art of the upper class was not really art because it alienated the lower class, and I completely disagree with this perspective for the above reason. Art can bring some people together who have roughly the same background and sensitivity, and this is still a powerful effect that must be appreciated. As far as Tolstoy's view is concerned, the "lower class" can make their own art that is relevant for them! However, in any case, the emotional impact of art is clearly one of its most important aspects. The last basic characteristic that art clearly can or must have is that it can or must be innovative; or in other words, it must be a new combination/juxtaposition of elements that has never been seen before. An idea that can help to demonstrate this point clearly is English art critic Clive Bell's concept of "significant form." His definition of significant form is as follows: "lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, [that] stir our aesthetic emotions" (Bell 366). The evolution of this concept of significant form, or more accurately, the evolution of these aesthetic forms themselves, is what we are really talking about here when we are talking about innovation. A good example of this evolution of form is when Pablo Picasso and another artist created the movement known as "Cubism." This was an appearance of a new type of significant form that clearly captured people's imagination, and that had never been seen before. This aspect of innovation is an obviously powerful attribute that a work of art can have, as a new type of form can actually spark a whole new movement in art.
Consequently, in light of weighing the importance of all three of the above characteristics, I believe that our first category of art as discussed at the beginning, High art, would then logically meet all three of these basic characteristics, skill, emotional impact, and innovation, for a significant number of trained people. Medium art would then have to meet any two out of three of these basic characteristics, it seems to me, and craft would of course then meet only one, which would have to be skill. This is why I have employed the phrase "can or must" earlier in the paper. Art does not have to have all of these characteristics, just combinations of them. So, let's discuss this a little further.
First of all, I have stated that high art meets all three of these basic characteristics/requirements for a significant number of trained people. I think that this is a fairly obvious and easily understood point. Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night" comes to mind here. Less obvious might be how medium art would have to meet two out of three of these characteristics. There would actually seem to be three combinations for how this could be true; lets examine them. The first would be that the art form is both done with skill and has emotional impact, but is not particularly innovative. A painter painting in another painter's style would be a good example of this. The next combination our art form could have would be that it is innovative and emotional, but is not considered particularly skillful. Much abstract art could fit into this category for many people. Lastly, the art form could be recognized as both skillful and innovative, but is not regarded as being very emotive in content. The style of "Futurism" comes to mind here. Art that is really just craft, of course, meets only one of these criteria, and that would necessarily be skill. Weaving a basket in an intricate way that was innovated at one time by someone, but is now merely an established procedure, is sometimes referred to as doing "art," and from this point of view it is, but just barely! It really is just craft, and most people would see the logic behind this idea, I think. To me, any art that is skillful but not emotive or innovative is just craft, whether it be baskets or paintings.
All of this classification can, of course, change in time. For example, styles of art that were innovative at one time are often merely mimicked today. This art could of course still be medium art if it is skillfully done and has a high emotional impact for a lot of trained people. Also, art that moved people emotionally or spiritually in the middle ages will not necessarily do so today, but this does not diminish it as having achieved the status of high art at one time. I think that this factor of the timing of an art form must always be taken into account in its artistic evaluation.
Another important aspect to the general phenomenon of art is that an object can function as art in a new context. For example, Native American sand painting is not "art" to the people who practice it, but medicine. After it serves its healing purpose it is destroyed. However, it is still art to us, because we put it into the frame of reference of art by taking a picture of it, for example, and it consequently manages to satisfy our requirements (as outlined above) for art. It involves skill, It moves some people emotionally by its beauty, and it was innovative at one time, (an innovation by the man who did it first). It seems clear that art then, to be seen as such, must be within a viewer created context, and we can clearly put anything we like into this context. It would, of course, not achieve the status of "art" unless a significant number of trained people agree that it is.
Additionally, I think that there is a common misconception among philosophers down through history concerning art, and this misconception is that art can achieve a type of spiritual unity with god or the universe. For example, B.N. Goswamy, in his essay entitled "Raja: Delight of the Reason" states that Raja, ("an experience of delight" when experiencing art) is an experience "akin to ultimate reality, twin brother to the tasting of Brahma" (Goswamy 691). Also the philosopher Hegel, who in his essay "The Ages of Art" speaks of his romantic stage of art as being associated with "the unity of human and divine nature" seems to agree with this (Hegel 449). I believe that both of these perspectives are quite overblown. In other words, I believe that art really can only, at this point in its evolution anyway, achieve a "secondary transcendence," or a spiritual or emotional union, with the artist. In other words, philosophers are wrong when they state or imply that art can create a mystical experience, or a primary transcendence if you will, or an actual spiritual union with the universe such as those experienced by Jesus or Bhudda, as they would seem to be implying. These mystical types of experiences have certain qualities that far surpass the viewing of any art form by anyone. In Walter T. Stace's excellent book, The Teachings of the Mystics, we get this description of that experience:
Verbal transcriptions that come nearest to it are: the unity and interlocking of everything that exists, an interdependence like that of gravitational fields or communicating vessels. The "I" ceases to exist because it has, by a kind of mental osmosis, established communication with, and been dissolved in, the universal pool. It is this process of dissolution and limitless expansion which is sensed as the "oceanic feeling," as the draining of all tension, the absolute catharsis, the peace that passeth all understanding (Stace).
Now, I think the reader will agree that no one has really ever had an experience like this when viewing a work of art. One can feel very moved, or very spiritual, while doing so, but this is a far cry from losing your ego and experiencing the true unity of the universe. However, in spite of this apparent failing, art is still a very powerful phenomenon. Just because it is an "imperfect" transfer of emotion or spirituality between (usually) only two people doesn't mean of course that it is not an exceptionally valuable communication medium between sentient beings.
To continue, art is also continuously evolving, like the philosopher Hegel thought but beyond. Hegel of course thought that there were three stages to art, the symbolic, the classical, and the romantic, and in this system it is clear that he saw art as an evolving process (Hegel 450). The problem is that he seems to have implicitly come to the conclusion that the romantic stage is the final possible stage for art to have achieved. I think that this doesn't really make sense; it makes more sense that art will continue to evolve as long as humans evolve, and it will evolve right along with them since it what art really is, as stated before, is a form of communication between sentient beings. As the beings who use art to communicate evolve, logically, so will their methods of communication.
A position put forward that, in my view, starts to get a better glimpse of this continuing evolutionary process of art is Ortega y Gasset's perspective in his essay "The Dehumanization of Art" (Gasset 168). I like this quote: "to construct something that is not a copy of 'nature' and yet possesses substance of its own is a feat that presupposes nothing less than genius" (Gasset 171). This is accurate because it coincides with what appears to be happening with humans. Humans are evolving; specifically, they are becoming more and more 'genetic and machine enhanced,' (genetic engineering, prosthetic medicine, man-machine symbiosis, etc.). Consequently, their art will evolve 'beyond human' as well by this process that is marked by genius. Ortega y Gasset's view and defense of painters who were breaking away from the tradition of the human form is a natural position that would have to occur in this transition. Incidentally, as far as "copying" anything in nature, everything that exists, exists and evolves inside the universe, so everything inside the universe is nature. In other words, no matter how far things are abstracted in art they are still natural, period, because they exist inside the universe.
This essay by Gasset then outlines the real next stage of art as discussed by Hegel. Symbolic art, classical art, then dehumanizing art, if you will. Art will evolve as we evolve, and will radically change, but it is still just a complex communication medium between sentient beings. The more sentient the being, the more complex the art form. Also, the more complex the art form and sentient the being, the closer the whole configuration will get to being able to express the spiritual unity of the universe. In other words, maybe art can induce a true mystical experience some day!
Again, art is a matter of degree and really can be categorized three ways, as high art, as medium art, and finally, as craft. The way that these distinctions can be made, in a way that approaches objectivity, is by how many people the particular art work has an effect on who are sensitive to the form of art in question and also have the historical background to understand it. In other words, Do a significant number of trained people agree on its clasification? As stated, art clearly can or must involve skill, move more than one person emotionally/spiritually; and also be innovative. Consequently, as discussed, High art would meet all three of these requirements for a significant number of trained people, medium art would meet two out of three, and craft would of course meet only one, skill.
Finally, I believe that the over-analysis of how art works, such as in Immanuel Kant's exhaustive analysis of what makes up an aesthetic judgement entitled "The Four Moments," really misses the point. The fact is, the art form and the person viewing it, as well as the person who created it, are completely interconnected in an interconnected universe and form a synergistic type of relationship that just is, and it works. This phenomenon of art will never be completely understood by any type of purely logical analysis such as Kant's approach, involving as it does both emotions and chance (chaos), as well as logic (order), and is thus highly subjective.
Work Cited
Bell, Clive. "Emotion in Response to Significant Form." Aesthetics in Perspective. Higgins, Kathleen M. ed. Harcourt Brace & Company. Fort Worth, TX. 1996.
Goswamy, B.N. "Rasa: Delight of the Reason." Aesthetics in Perspective. Higgins, Kathleen M. ed. Harcourt Brace & Company. Fort Worth, TX. 1996.
, G.W.F. "The Ages of Art." Aesthetics in Perspective. Higgins, Kathleen M. ed. Harcourt Brace & Company. Fort Worth, TX. 1996.
Kant, Immanuel. "The Four Moments" Aesthetics in Perspective. Higgins, Kathleen M. ed. Harcourt Brace & Company. Fort Worth, TX. 1996.
Stace, Walter T. The Teachings of the Mystics. Mentor. New York. 1960.
Tolstoy, Leo. "What is Art?" Aesthetics in Perspective. Higgins, Kathleen M. ed. Harcourt Brace & Company. Fort Worth, TX. 1996.
Response to Critique of "The Nature of Art" (Full paper above) (Also successfully defended theory against similar attacks by almost the entire class 12/05/02)
"If art is an interaction through a medium between sentient beings than all forms of communication are art. This sounds like a definition that is too broad. However the next formulation of your definition narrows the territory some, for example excluding unskilled communication and communication that does not move emotionally or spiritually."
Art is a certain type of communication. The definition of art must be broad. If you narrow it any more, you leave out parts of the definition; hence all this bickering by aesthetic philosophers!
"Why do you insist that something cannot be art if it only moves one person emotionally or spiritually? Can't you imagine a work of art that just moves one person, the artist, and then it is destroyed in a fire before anyone else could see it?"
This example would only be potential art. If it only moves one person in any case, it isn't communication.
"Although the idea of innovation is good, I wonder what would be left out. Just about everything made involves some new combination of elements. Even a Sheri Levine rephotograph of a famous photograph is new. What you need is some threshold or level of newness. But then, maybe you need a threshold of skill too."
These thresholds would be decided by default by the "significant number of people" who have the background to evaluate the art form and agree. I should have used the phrase "significant number of trained people" throughout the paper though; I have rewritten it to fix this ambiguity; see attached copy.
"If you define art in terms of skill, innovation, and emotional impact, then these would seem to be necessary conditions for art. But around page 4 you indicate that they are only necessary conditions for high art, not for the other two kinds of art. So what is it that all three kinds of art have in common such that they are art?"
Some combination of these three things. High art has all three, medium art has any two out of three, and craft has only skill. Ultimately what ties "all three kinds of art" together is that they are describing a type of communication called art.
"Dicky would argue that you are confusing an evaluative definition of art with a classificatory one."
I don't understand. I am putting forward a system for evaluating works of art that exist in his classificatory sense of the word.
"Also, why do you add the phrase "for a significant number of people?" Is your point a definitional one or are you assuming that we know what high art is and you are just telling us that it happens to meet these conditions for a significant number of people?"
My point is that art is truly classified by a consensus of people who are qualified to classify it. They should be using these criteria completely, however (I think they actually are whether they know it or not). Again, I should have used the phrase "significant number of trained people" throughout the paper. Art is ultimately completely subjective, and only approaches objectivity by more and more trained people agreeing and completely using this scale of the three characteristics. If you have one camp of trained people saying yes and one camp saying no, I suppose the one with the most number of people wins (or maybe you have to look into their training).
"Perhaps the work of Thomas Kinkaid meets all three conditions for a significant number of people. Does this make his work high art? (I hope not.)"
No. Most people who like him are not using these criteria to evaluate it, and most trained people do not take him seriously. (not for me, either.)
"What if something meets the conditions in the eyes of a significant number of people but actually is neither skillful nor innovative (those people being deluded)?"
Are they trained and are you trained? This would just be your opinion verses theirs.
"What of things that are called craft but are actually skillful, innovative, and also moving?"
Then, if a significant number of trained people agree, it is mistakenly being called craft according to them.
"It is hard to know when people have actually had mystical experiences as you have defined them. I don't see any reason why looking at a work of art couldn't trigger such an experience. But then you allow it as a possibility some time in the future."
There are numerous documented accounts of mystical experiences that all have similar described characteristics which are quite heavy. My impression is that they are experiences that typically come from within, and are not triggered by externalities. I am not an expert on this, however, Buddha was meditating, Mohammed was alone in a cave, etc.
If you would like to discuss this further, my email is d_m_pete@hotmail.com. By the way, I really enjoyed this class, it was cool!
Other Works by David M. Petersen