I'm in need of some real philosophical musings here...and although I'm a regular here in the philosophy section, I don't usually start threads. But recently I picked up the magazine Philosophy Now (because there was an essay concerning art through Heideggerian philosophy) and I figured I'd serve up some of the stuff I've been reading since most here have some artistic inclination and might enjoy a discussion in Aestheticism.

Now, I've quite a bit to discuss, but not to bog this post down with a lot of unnecessary babble, I'll just throw out some of the key points...

FIRST AND FOREMOST...aestheticism (the Philosophy of Art) has always been a tricky subject. Not much exists in this field of philosophy...and what little does, it's popularity among philosophers is usuaully a mere passtime. But key players (like Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger) have touched on the subject from time to time...although, offering very little on what truths (if any) can be derived from art.

I'll start off with Nietzsche (since I personally think he's perhaps the only philosopher to uncover any truth concerning art). It's rather simple, in the long run, to understand the objectivity of art...for at its core, art has two subjective aspects. ONE: any piece of art brings with it the "Appolian" aspect--that is, a painting is a bunch of colors and lines and shapes, etc; a piece of writing is a formation of letters into words into sentences and thus forth. SECOND: any piece of art brings with it the "Dionysian" aspect--that is, the painting is of woman smiling; the writing is a poem. And it is the latter that we're really concerned with.

But how should philosophers be concerned with it? And how does art reflect on mankind?

One of the essays in the magazine (the one concerning Heidegger's most famous philosophy--"Daisen" [German for "being-there"] which concerns man's being within his relationship to existence) argues that the reason art is so powerful, is that it helps escape the anxiety of man...the threat of man's "no-thing-ness"...man's mortality. In spectating any piece of art, man is able to escape himself, even if briefly, into another world...while at the same time, is able to live deep within himself...as in, experiencing an emotion.

That's all fine and dandy...but I wanted more...

Thus, I came across some arguments concerning why man loves art, and how man experiences art.

Two arguments seem to be at the forefront:

1. Cognitivist (cognitive)--how is it man is able to identify works of art? How is it man can decipher one song as angry, and another as sad? Well, perhaps it has something to with our own cognitive realities? For example: the color yellow...why is it yellow is the color of road signs, tennis balls, reflectors, etc.? Because it's the color the human eye is so sensitive to. So there is some pathological framework at play here... Why is it the slow and drudgy songs are usually an indication of sadness or depression; while upbeat, energetic songs are an indication of happiness and fun? How is that such pieces bring forth said feelings and have the ability to reflect our feelings?

2. Emotivist (emotional)--we like what we like; and what we like is in reference to how we feel and want to feel. If you're a happy and bubbly person, you'll probably listen to "pop" type of stuff; if you're angry, Pantera will suit your needs just fine; if you're eccentric and dark, the gothic genre will do just fine...but why? Why does one relate to this genre (goth-rock), which is portraying this feeling (lonliness) and not this genre (country) which is portraying the same feeling (lonliness); and furthermore, why does one prefer this song/feeling (anger) from this band (Megadeth) over the exact same song/feeling (anger) from that band (Metallica) when both are seemingly of equal styles?


Whatever argument or stance one takes, I still don't see what aestheticism has to offer...what universal truths (if any) can be derived from art? That man has the need to create and be fascinated by reflections of himself? But how does one judge which does it more effectively and whether or not it is effective...(how would the Mona Lisa look if it were painted with watercolors...would its effect change for the better or worse?) And to proclaim that "art is in the eye of the beholder" tells us nothing about art and has no philosophical significance...for it is based on opinion and not logic. So, why art? Why does man need art? And is it important?