‘What is Art?’ (essay in July 2009)
For Plato, art is nothing more than an imitation. Art cannot teach us anything because knowledge must be of what really exists and the artist practices on a mirroring level of imitation. Art is mimesis, it represents a world which is already a representation of a representation, and thus artists are twice removed from their subject, from reality. Plato (c. 380 BC) uses the example of the Bed, the carpenter’s bed and the painter’s bed. The Form ‘the Bed’ represents God’s idea of the bed, or for the atheist the abstract idea of bed, the idea which cannot be destroyed. The carpenter’s and painter’s idea of a bed can be destroyed. He further develops this argument by suggesting that a painter who depicts a bed knows very little about neither carpentry nor indeed anything about the concept of a ‘Bed’ or ‘the Form of a Bed’. Only philosophers know about the Forms. ‘Forms are eternal, unchanging, absolute realities which are the true objects of knowledge. These absolute realities cannot be grasped via the senses, but are objects of pure understanding.’ (cited in John Cottingham, 2001, p 13) As art uses the senses, art cannot contribute to our understanding of the Forms. Plato sees art as corrupting the mind through its emotional heightening of the senses, lessening our rational capacity. Art should thus be censored. Art is inferior, thrice removed from the truth. Yet Greek tragedies offer wonderful descriptions of human life, full of moral lessons and catharsis. For Plato’s pupil and main critic Aristotle, a good tragedy delivers a sense of purging through pity and fear, and art would ultimately present us with a moral lesson. Everyone can enjoy art and would benefit from its allegorical qualities; art is not just an emotional and playful experience, but a necessary drive in becoming good.
As mentioned, according to Plato, the only individuals who can attain an understanding of the Forms are the philosophers. Yet it is generally agreed that artists create beauty. Plato believes that knowledge of beauty is the same as knowledge of morality or knowledge of mathematics so in this respect, artists too must have a universal understanding, allowing us to see or hear the earthly representation of beauty which they choose to depict or describe.
Crucially, artists not only present, they also select and by doing so impose a structure on our senses.
Universal understanding is also present in Kant’s aesthetic judgement, as described in The Critique of Judgement (1790). Kant’s condition of enjoying aesthetic judgement is that it must be free (that is without desire) and disinterested or devoid of any emotional, psychological, moral and intellectual interest. This, however, offers a challenge to the artist: if he or she wishes to experience such judgement, one must stand outside beauty’s realm. In other words, artists must grasp both an internal and universal knowledge. Can we hereby assume that Kant would agree with the statement that an artist can grasp this universal truth? Of course not every artist has that ability. Only an artist genius can give ‘form to beauty’…
Kant, unlike Plato, believes that an aesthetic judgement is based on a feeling; it is a private and subjective judgement. Art allows the artist to express this private feeling, which, paradoxically, at the same time, is both universal and subjective and, furthermore, if the outcome of the art work results in beauty, then this beauty is ineffable, it cannot be described as there is no concept of beauty. This offers, in a Kantian perspective, a challenging position for the artist.
Whilst Plato and Kant put the Form of beauty and aesthetic judgement outside the human mind, Schopenhauer believes that
‘the artistic genius contemplates these Ideas, creates a work of art that portrays them in a manner more clear and accessible than is usual, and thereby communicates the universalistic vision to those who lack the idealizing power to see through, and to rise above, the ordinary world of spatio-temporal objects.’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, website)
So rather than philosophers exclusively gaining an understanding of the world, artists too have the ability to reveal knowledge. Artists can accomplish this through internalisation and the works artists produce reveal a reality that may lie beyond ordinary perception. Following on from Plato and Kant, Schopenhauer (1851) wrote that the artist can
‘for example, [describe] an event, a scene from human life, accurately and fully and thus with an exact presentation of the individuals concerned therein, give us a clear and profound knowledge of the Idea of humanity itself,’ (cited in John Cottingham, 2001, p. 565).
Furthermore Schopenhauer lifts the status and identity of the artist by stating that art
‘… is the work of genius. It repeats the eternal Ideas apprehended through pure contemplation, the essential and abiding element in all the phenomena of the world. According to the material in which it does this, it is sculpture, painting, poetry, or music. Its only source is knowledge of Ideas; its sole aim is communication of this knowledge.’ (cited in Bryan Magee, 1983, p. 167)
This puts the artist 1 in a category far more elevated than Plato ever anticipated, and furthermore, as Schopenhauer believed that life was a great and painful challenge, art could help us to escape from our frustrations and painful human condition. So art can be a saviour. Furthermore:
‘Because works of art give us the privilege of seeing with the eyes, or hearing with the ears, of the geniuses who place them before us, and thus raise us to levels of perception higher than those we would be able to reach ourselves.’ (cited in Bryan Magee, 1983, p.171)
So, in brief: art can teach us and art can reach parts in us we would not normally be able to reach. Art can be a unique communication of knowledge which otherwise may not be revealed.
This point of view describes art as a very tangible entity. However, acording to the French author and philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1940) art is unreal: ‘It will appear at the moment when consciousness, undergoing a radical change in which the world is negated, will itself become imaginative; (cited in Stephen Priest, 2001, p. 293). In other words, we cannot experience the artwork, unless we forget our senses. Art is outside the boundaries of our consciousness. Sartre describes it as ‘an unreality’. What he refers to is the distinction between the material object and the intention of the artist, the representational content. He gives the example of a painting, a portrait of Charles VII. We can look at the painting and see the person, Charles VII, but we can also look at the canvas and see colours, brush strokes and the thickness of the paint. If we look at the physical object we cannot have an aesthetic experience, we must look beyond. We must experience a moment when we can submerge ourselves in a platonic disengaged sensory status. Charles VII, the painting is hanging in the Louvre, and was created by the French medieval artist Jean Fouquet. It shows the king of France, in his regal outfit, looking rather sombre, sober and detached. Unless a historian or label tells us it is King Charles VII, there is no obvious sign who the figure is. We also know it isn’t Charles VII, he is long dead. Yet, no one will deny we can have an aesthetic experience from looking at the painting. This is the aesthetic experience explained by Sartre’s description of the ‘Depth Ambiguity’, where we can see either five or six cubes, depending on our conscious will. To experience art we must be a willing receiver. However, this does not equate to liking the painting or judging it beautiful. Our senses must be willing receptors of certain signals. But there is also a discrepancy here. With music, for example, Sartre beliefs ‘that what is expressed or communicated can not be wholly expressed or communicated in words. Words cannot substitute for music’ (cited in Stephen Priest, 2001, p. 289) So, in essence we have meaning beyond what is expressed. We can agree that music can capture a meaning, which cannot be explained from the musical score. But Sartre beliefs that this musical meaning cannot be linguistically expressed. And furthermore, whilst ‘language can express a non-linguistic reality, music does not express a non-musical reality’ (cited inStephen Priest, 2001, p. 289). This implies that in order to experience art, we must interpret on a different level, or as Sartre says of listening to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony: ‘I do not hear it actually, I listen to it in the imaginary.’ (cited in Stephen Priest, 2001, p. 297) The same deduction can be applied to visual art, fiction, poetry and drama. And the means by which the artist expresses himself (or herself) is by making an analogue. Art is an analogue, a material vehicle, the material being the canvas, the paint, the words, the actors.
‘If the world is what it is, then in watching a play or looking at a painting, we are grasping what is in a new way. The work of art does not exist in its own world. We are imaginatively presented with a transformed world.’ (Stephen Priest, 2001, p. 292)
We must process art’s meaning, using our imagination. We will live through an induced imaginary consciousness, waking up in a reality. The shock of this awakening can be abrupt, for example, walking out of the cinema, exiting an art gallery or a theatre, reaching the final chapter of a book. Awaking from this induced semi-conscious dream may evoke catharsis, a realisation that in our own existence, our condition has been purged.
Our memory allows us to recall an aesthetic experience. Visiting the Rothko exhibition in the Tate Gallery last November, has left a deep impression on me, and I can re-livethe emotion which I first experienced when I walked along the gallery. Whilst the aesthetic object (the analogue) has long been removed, I still experience the aesthetic pleasure, through my imaginary consciousness. I cannot remember the brush strokes, the thickness of the paint, yet I can recall the memory of the experience.2
All the above discussions relate to our relationship with art, our experience as an extension of our mind. But art is created, tangible and is a product of the artist’s social, ethical, political and cultural make up. Art is not made in a vacuum. Sartre insists that (unlike Kant) ’writing is an ethical and political act; an act which should be an authentic and committed (engagé) expression of the author’s freedom.’ (cited in Stephen Priest, 2001, p. 259) But if indeed according to Sartre, writing (or any form of artistic expression) is to be an ethical and political act, how can this message be made clear through an imaginative unconsciousness? Does the work not risk at being stuck in communicating an induced dream which does not convey the artist’s intention? Could it not be that the artist’s choice of subject, material, style, technique conveys a message and underlining meaning, which are intrinsically woven into the fabric of both the explicable and the inexplicable?
We can now draw some conclusions regarding the question ‘What is art?’
Philosophers have looked at art and on many occasions it is defined in term of its capacity at expressing beauty. Beauty is both subjective and universal, but not the only criteria for contemplating art. Today, art is not necessarily beautiful (indeed countless books have been written on this topic). One could agree with the statement that ‘art imitates’ and we can also generally agree that we can learn from this imitation. However, what art imitates is not just based on the realities that are surrounding us. This is particularly the case for abstract art which lacks visual reference and can demonstrate a reality outside the sensory domain.
Good art is art which appeals ‘to our full range of human responses, intellectual and moral as well as emotional’ (John Cottingham, 2001, p. 539).
One could argue that the creation of art is the ultimate expression of human existence. Producing and observing art involves communication, experience and certain knowledge. Art may be physical or virtual, originating in the past or the present. The boundaries of an aesthetic experience are always on the move, oscillating between reality and the use of our imagination. Art reveals these boundaries and it is the user who decides how to take the experience further.
[2128 words, including references between brackets]
_______________________
1 Disappointingly Schopenhauer did not believe, however, that women could be good artists.
2 On my recent Edinburgh gallery visit featuring contemporary art, I may have looked at Tracy Emin’s bed with different eyes, had I contemplated Plato’s example beforehand…
References
Books
Cottingham, J. 1996. Western Philosophy, An anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
George D. and Sclafani R. J. 1977. Aesthetics. A Critical Anthology, New York: St. Martin’s Press
Magee, B. 1983. The Philosophy of Schopenhauer. Revised and enlarged edition, Oxford University Press.
Priest, S. 2001. Jean Paul Sartre: Basic Writings. London and New York: Routledge
Website
Robert Wicks, November 2007, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry on Arthur Schopenhauer available from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/
5/7/09