Week 1: What is aesthetics?
July 31, 2018
In fact, what is a world without aesthetics?
Undeniably, such a world—that is, a world without aesthetic qualities—would be:
[…] inferior, if not uninhabitable altogether. Consequently, a person without capacity for an aesthetic response, if even possible, would not quality as a fully developed human being. — (Gardner, 2003).
This statement by Gardner presents itself as particularly striking to me. As a young adult living in our current generation of youth, art—and by extension, aesthetics—is most often dismissed as mere tripe, or something that’s not to be taken seriously, in favour of fields of interest that are directly tied to the era of technological advancement that we live in.
What then, does Gardner’s quote imply about a sizeable chunk of my generation?
That’s not to say that I, myself, harbour the same disinclination towards the Information Age—quite the opposite, in fact, as I’ve grown up fostering an insatiable curiosity for all things digital and mechanical.
However, I would always be perplexed at how some people just couldn’t view art with the same fascination that others did. What was it about art that caused people to have wildly varying (inconsistent, even) reactions?
I’ve long since concluded that individuals with indifferent attitudes towards art are, a) unable to understand the depth behind the creative arts, or b) simply unwilling to explore the process behind such matters—which may occur for a whole wealth of reasons, none of which should be vilified in the slightest.
With that being said, perhaps I, myself, never properly understood the subtleties of art itself. After being introduced to the first week of this subject and becoming a tad bit familiarised with the ‘philosophy of art’, it’s clear that there’s still much for me to learn.
Week 2: Art as representation.
August 7, 2018
I think it can be universally agreed upon that art, in all its different shapes and forms, seems to be about something—to represent something. The key question then, as brought up in the Eldridge (2003) reading this week, is how representation is achieved in these various forms of media.
The following questions, taken from the Eldridge (2003) reading, come to mind when attempting to reason with the above:
- Does representation involve any likeness or resemblance between the representer and the represented?
- Is the same sense of “representation” involved in different mediums?
- Does the value of a work depend upon what it represents; and if so, how?
- Is representation even necessary for art? Is it sufficient?
Take, for example, this 6-minute excerpt of Kashiwa Daisuke’s Stella (which I highly recommend listening to in full), played over the backdrop of—for lack of better words—a hauntingly ambiguous ‘art’ film.
While I’m sure this video would mean different things to different people, whether it be positive or negative, many of them would be hard-pressed not to call it ‘art’. However, what is it about this aesthetic experience that beckons people to acknowledge its status as art, despite their personal responses to it? Is it enough to categorise this video as art simply because it represented something to a vast majority of people?
Consider this: propaganda, too, is a medium that represents something whilst evoking a response from an audience—but we don’t call propaganda art, do we?
Similarly, if we take away the video and listen to Daisuke’s instrumental piece on its own, would that satisfy the requirements of viewing art as representation? Certainly so, as even within its first six minutes, Stella manages to weave an instrumental, narrative tapestry, undoubtedly telling a story of some kind. However, would this criteria alone suffice for the defining of ‘art’?
The conclusion to be made here, then, is that representation in and of itself is not a sufficient condition for art. For if it were, there’s absolutely nothing to differentiate between, say, Daisuke’s Stella and a pamphlet of instructions for assembling a piece of IKEA furniture.
Week 3; Art as expression.
August 14, 2018
So, if not all art can be ‘represented’ per se, can it be expressed instead? Similar to last week’s entry, this week’s area of focus rests on the theory of viewing art as a form of expression—in which several of its theoretical conditions can be found below:
- Artistic intention: the intentional communication of feeling and/or emotion, using appropriate form.
- Transmission theory: the requirement for an artist to ‘transfer’ an emotional state; from sender, to recipient.
- Experience condition: the condition that an artist must have personally experienced an emotional state before attempting to portray it in art.
After taking into account the stated conditions, the obvious critique to be made here, then, is this: what about artworks that are clearly devoid of any obvious emotional expression?
In order to answer the above, consider the following artwork by avant-garde artist MLMA, titled We Watched Cloud Atlas Last Night (2018):
How would one attempt to acutely ascribe emotional expression to this photo—if even feasible? It’s clear that emotional expression is present; however, the real problem lies in the fact that there seems to be no singular, definitive way of interpreting these said emotions. This, perhaps, could be attributed to the fact that there is no artistic intention whatsoever within the photo. Yes, there certainly is the communication of feeling; but whether the artist intended for it to be so is a separate matter entirely—one that exposes the shortcomings of viewing art as expression.
Consequently, without an obvious artistic intention, the application of the transmission theory is deemed moot: what specific, emotional state is there to ‘transfer’? Is this ‘clarification of emotion’ even necessary to define art in the first place?
Although the theory of art as expression can be successfully applied in a large number of instances, the fact that We Watched Cloud Atlas Last Night (2018) does not fulfil the theoretical requirements only serves to render the framework as somewhat valid—yet blatantly incomplete, much like viewing art as representation.
Week 4; Art as institution.
August 21, 2018
This week we look at Danto (1964), who rebukes the initial theories of art as representation, as well as art as expression, as no longer applicable to modern art. Rather than its former interpretations, Danto (1964) instead chooses to endorse the third installation in this ‘series’, if you will: art as institution.
Interpreting art as institution came to be born through the following question: how can we distinguish between artworks and real things?
What’s to separate, say, an ‘art installation’ of a couch placed in front of a working television from one’s living room at home?
Happening upon this realisation, Danto (1964) created the notion of the ‘artworld’—a world inhabited only by those who understand it.
This brings me back to reflect on my first journal entry. In the current social climate of young adults such as myself, there has been an incredible insurgence of ‘art’ that typically defies all well-established traditions and conventions. Mere, everyday objects were dubbed ‘art’; thus leading to the mass confusion, and even hostility, towards people who claimed they understood the meaning behind all this new ‘art’.
The above phenomenon is strongly reminiscent of Andy Warhol’s Brillo Boxes, pictured below. This is an artwork created to show that what labels an artwork as art isn’t a physical, tangible property; but rather, the condensing of ideas, knowledge, and practices that define context in the ‘artworld’.
One of the most common things for people of my generation to say when looking at art is that they “just don’t get it”. After learning about the artworld, I now understand why.
Week 5; The subjectivity and objectivity of beauty.
August 28, 2018
Truth be told, is it even possible to find objectivity in beauty? After all, everyone knows the saying; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Instead of the inclusivity—or exclusivity, rather—of the ‘artworld’ and interpretations of art based on its shock value, seeing art as beauty is synonymous with seeing art as giving pleasure. This means that, first and foremost, art as beauty heavily relies on one’s subjective perception; thus giving way to other factors such as sensation, sensuous immersion, and, ultimately, aesthetic pleasure.
Consider, for example, the following artwork by Yayoi Kusama, titled Accumulation of Corpses (Prisoner Surrounded by the Curtain of Depersonalisation) (1950).
Despite not sharing many characteristics with typical traditions of ‘beauty’, this artwork is one that I find, personally, to be beautiful. Though the painting is grim in every sense of the word, I find that it conveys the unavoidable horrors in life that many face—and just as the Ancient Greeks once did, I feel that there’s beauty to be found in revelations of truth; whether they be positive, or negative.
Week 6; Beauty, desire, and pleasure.
September 4, 2018
In the same vein of last week’s area of focus, this week centres on different interpretations in which to view beauty. Although numerous meanings were discussed, the following two particularly stood out to me:
- Nehamas’ view of beauty as a promise of happiness, and
- the platonic ideal of beauty as perfection.
Nehamas (2000) expresses a deep desire to know and possess—and in turn, be possessed by—a feeling not dissimilar to emotions of friendship and love for others. He turns to the concept of beauty to answer his desires, claiming that within beauty lies the promise of something more—which, in turn, causes beauty to become an inexhaustible source of pleasure, meaning, and self-transformation.
This can be easily interpreted by viewing beauty as something that most people constantly strive for—be it consciously or subconsciously—consequently giving their journey meaning and purpose. Ultimately, this often lifelong endeavor is undertaken in the hopes of experiencing a pleasure that’s attainable only through self-transformation.
Conversely, the platonic notion of beauty as perfection concerns itself with the desire for all that is ‘ideal’. Thus, beauty is linked to desire; for in our quest for perfection, we are expressing none other than a desire for self-transcendence—for immortality.