To start, I've read "Art Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)" by Cynthia Freeland
Here, I will discuss the Introduction and Chapters 1 and 2.
In
the Introduction, Freeland explains that the field of aesthetics and
art theory is concerned with establishing a framework with which we can
try to determine the meaning of works of art and their value. She cites
six different major categories of art theory; ritual theory, formalist
theory, imitation theory, expression theory, cognitive theory, and
postmodern theory. These are the areas she will explore in the book.
Immanuel Kant |
The first chapter begins with a discussion of how, in the past, one might argue that art is similar to ritual because it can involve a group brought together
by shared values and goals. However, Freeland points out that much
modern art fails to unite viewers and often shocks and repels them.
That, in a world of mechanization and mass production, artists must turn
to self-expression and shock to garner attention. Blood, feces, urine,
and semen have become part of the artist's palette, a development that
eighteenth-century philosopher, David Hume have would have hardly
approved of this development. Hume wrote about art, morality, and taste,
urging artists to promote the values of the Enlightenment, especially,
progress and moral improvement.
Aesthetics,
or taste in more familiar terms, was the topic of much debate in the
eighteenth century amongst philosophers like Hume and Immanuel Kant.
Both men argued that some works of art were intrinsically better than
others. They approached this conclusion from different angles, Hume felt
that people, through a combination of education and experience, reached
a consensus about what constituted beauty. Kant believed that the
beauty in art lay in the object itself. To Kant, a beautiful thing
displayed an internal harmony and elicited the "free play" of our
imaginations. Beautiful things lacked a true purpose other than existing
for the pleasure of it.
David Hume |
Kant's
view held a major influence until well into the twentieth century when
the tide shifted as work that was repulsive and negative became accepted
as art.
Chapter
Two takes us back to the Greeks and Plato's criticism of all art as
imitation. He felt that art was only an imitation of things in our
world, which were themselves merely representations of ideas. Plato's
pupil, Aristotle, argued that this imitation was only natural for humans
and that we could learn from the examples it provided. This "imitation
theory" was the basis of the view that art was a quest for more and more
accurate depictions of reality.
Andy Warhol with his "Brillo Boxes" |
The
advent of photography put an end to imitation theory and freed artists
from trying to emulate nature. From the impressionists to the
expressionists to the abstract expressionists and beyond, artists pushed
the envelope moving further and further away from imitation. The French
post-Impressionist painter, Paul Gauguin, declared that "Art is either a
plagiarist or a revolutionary."
By
the time that Andy Warhol arrives on the scene with his Brillo Boxes,
the boundaries of what is art are called in to question as never before.
Philosopher Arthur Danto determined that anything can be a work of art
if it conveys meaning. That art doesn't have to be beautiful or moral.
Of course, saying something is art does not necessarily mean it is good
art.
All images are in the public domain.
Very nice, Art. Looking forward to learning a lot with you on this topic.
ReplyDelete(But, btw, your images of Kant and Hume have the names reversed. Hume's the guy in the funny hat.)
I have to say, as an unsophisticated consumer/appreciator of art who merely "knows what I like," that I find both Kant's and Hume's positions more appealing than that of the modernists who find it necessary to resort to shock and outrage in order to gain an audience. But then, if Kant and Hume had lived in our time they might have been less focused on Enlightenment values, harmony and order etc.
I'd love to know more, if you have occasion to consider it, of what Kant meant by the "sublime" in art.
As usual, I side with Aristotle. Objecting to a work of art as an imitation (except in cases of plagiarism-though Gaugin's either/or seems extreme, or simply derivative unoriginality) strikes me as strange, even for a metaphysical Platonist.
It's much easier to agree with Danto when we attach the observation that while anything goes, that's no guarantee that just anything will be good.
Dang it, sorry about Kant/Hume. I still struggle with the interface. To me, classical art is more about teaching the viewer while modern art seeks to make the viewer think for themselves. Picasso said "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth." Have a great Labor Day, I saw Sydney over on the trail at Barfield Park this morning.
ReplyDeleteI don't grasp the distinction, in my own line of teaching. I always try to be a constructive provocateur, as I imagine the classical arts also did - in their relatively understated way.
ReplyDeleteIs art a lie? People say that about literary fiction too, but I think the format of fiction is not a "lie"... it's a pretense, granted. But "lie" sounds harsh.
Hey to Sydney!