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?

immortality? art captures the intangiable aspect of man (happy sad ect ect) and allows that part of that life to live forever. We love art because it communcates something or an aspect of a momement for eterinity and thus essentialy makes an aspect of that person live forever.

C'mon...

I expected more from you Mr. Bush...

Six

my post is my affirmation of my agreement with Heidegger

your asking a few diffrent questions here a couple i dont think necassarly represent the questions your asking.

Appolian and Dionysain - a novel its just a bunch of lines that form text but if you read it and have an experince usally emotional then it is more then just lines of text to you and to you it is art. If you read it and dont have any such experince is it still art? For me Pollocks work is garbage others pay millions for it is it art? Looking at art as a personnel prefrence will not tell you anything about art ie a person cant tell you very much about art but art can tell you alot about a person. your two questions which are reflections of an indivdual relationship with art will give you no logical truth and are philisophicaly valueless.

Which leaves only Heidegger a persons motivated to art so that the person can feel because we like to feel and a person is motivated to paint to capture a portion of themselves to live forever

or am i missing something?

You missed everything...

First off, that's not what Nietzsche's "Birth of Tragedy" was covering at all. The difference between the Appolian and the Dionysian has nothing to do with your feelings on the matter. As in regards to Pollock...the Appolian aspect would be the colors used, the lines, etc...the Dionysian would be the abstract aspect of it. Whether you like it or hate it doesn't matter in that regard...you can hate or like both. But it's the latter, the Dionysian, which reveals something more than just mere form. For example: take the word APPLE. The Appolian is the basic structure of the word: A-P-P-L-E. The Dionysian is that which advocates meaning...apple: a fruit which grows from a tree.

That was Nietzsche's biggest contribution to the discussion on art...although he went on to talk about tragedy and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...


As for the two "valueless" arguments...they're not mine...I never even came across them until yesterday when I was reading an essay in that magazine. And I don't see how you proclaim them as "valueless"...I added a little bit of my own philosophical musings, but I think their main argument is extremely interesting.

How do we decipher art? Is it because of a pathological framework, or is deeply rooted within an emotional context?

And last but not least, that wasn't Heidegger's concept...that was another philosopher using Heidegger to help explain why man needs art. Heidegger did write an essay about art (which I have, but haven't read)...I'll read it sometime soon. But, this is incorrect:
As far as I can tell, from what I've read, this essay was merely taking Heidegger's concept of Dasein: being-there. And I quote: "'Being in love' is an excellent intuitive example of how this works, for the term makes no regerence to existence in time or space, but rather to specific state of being [. . .]" (Reneh Karamians [Philosophy Now, Issue 57, page 10]). Nevertheless, the aspect that it will end, that it is only temporal, plagues its essence.

What I think this individual was trying to suggest is that when experiencing art, man is able to escape this "negative aspect" of existence by divulging deeply into the experience at hand. But I must admit, I'm very confused by this idea, and I'm not sure if I've fully grasped it myself...

my assement of its value was not an attack on your person iam stating looking at art based on personnel prefrence is valueless the arguments themselves in my opinion have no value because they tell you nothing about art itself. which is one of the questions you asked

i was not defining the two concepts but making a point about them relative to art a road sign being lines and having a meaning does not make it art typically art causes an emotional response ergo if i read a novel it might have been good but it might not be art unless i connect with it on some level other then simply learning and or entertainment which is what this topic is about so one most infer dionsyan meaning relative to the topic to be more then simpely a stop sign. If we cant make this leap with this philisophical idea then it has no value to the questions your asking which have to do with emotion. Take Water Lillies for example its a picture of water lillies in a pond which connveies a meaning that if you were standing next to Monet when he painted it you would have seen a pond and water lillies. But that is not why people enjoy looking at the painting now is it? This is applying the idea to your question.

now to pollock and perhaps one of most interesting questions posed what if mona lisa was painted with water colors? i ask you to humor the following series of questions in the hope that i make a point. if mona was painted in water colors what changes, texture, color, sharpness of lines. Will people still derive the same meaning (emotional response) from it if those things change? lets say they dont derive the same meaning, what does that say about emotion? can one conlude that the image does not matter that only the colors, texture and sharpness of lines matters? Furthermore how can we say which one is the reason behind the change in how that painting is viewed emotionally? For example is my dislike for pollock in that i dont like the colors or i dislike the lack of order in his work? does this tell us that we dont understand our emotions and what causes them at all, and the reason that we like art and create it is to somehow capture and control that which is otherwise uncapturable and uncontollable?

aesthetics? *nice*

well, i think there's definitely something behind the 'mortality / immotality' thing. my physics prof and i discussed why some systems appear to be 'ordered' and others are 'chaotic'... how it had to do with how random or unlikely something seemed, that the more unlikely the arrangement the more 'beautiful' it became. as humans, and more importantly members of the universe, we admire order (or unlikeliness) because the universe is tending towards likeliness via entropy... which would, under this theory, indicate that beauty might be sort of a xenophilia. lol

i'd like to take it a step further by looking at how i react to art. i, personally, have a certain image that i derive some measure of pleasure in maintaining. when i see things that reflect on that image, i really DO like them, both because i want to like them and because i've actually fooled myself into liking them. well, maybe fooled isn't the right word. a better word would be taught. i've taught myself to like certain things because liking them makes me happy. music is a good example. i think you can tell a lot about a person by the kind of music they listen to, even how they dress, without being fickle. what a person 'wants to be' is more important than how that person 'is', because the person can only really 'control' the first.

i also agree that a large part of art is seeing ourselves reflected in it, holding on to emotions that might otherwise be gone forever. i remember feeling things that don't have a word associated with them, emotions similar to love and hate and envy and pride that aren't exactly the same. art is romantic because it can remind you of those feelings and take you back to your best and worst moments, letting you experience those emotions in a way that you were unable to while actually experiencing it. so we like or dislike art for the same reason we can like or dislike talking to an old friend, visiting your old house, or using the same kind of shampoo. it jogs our memory, in whatever unpredictable way, and we remember.

hmmm... i think the state of being thing is linked to what i was saying about 'bottling emotions' that you might forget about otherwise. we want to keep everything in a sort of experience closet so that we can look inside the closet and, in the most self-gratifying way possible, point at everything and say 'that's good, that's bad, i like that, i hate that'. it sounds like you're almost trying to prove yourself by doing it, so maybe we like art because it makes us remember experience hence giving some sort of subconcious proof of our own existence? maybe that's what consciousness is: seeing things, remembering experience, and hence knowing who you are. art makes us self aware because it's personal. that's what we all really want.

i don't really understand philosophy so please forgive me. I did, however, find this dicussion interesting. The way I see it people create art because we're like uh... peacocks without feathers. So we make feathers. Not to attract a mate but just viewers in general (now there are those who make art for "release" or whatever I'm not one of those. I don't make art for me so...). We, artists are educated on what people are receptive to. We put blue here to make you think this, this line here for this. We paint and take photographs to make the veiwer WANT to look. That is part of the art. So it is very much the cognitive one there.

It's emotional too. We are very emotional creatures and one ties into the other. Did you know that green is the most relaxing color? A person may not know that but may paint their office that color for that reason. It is also emotional for the person making the art and hopefully that will establish a connection to the veiwer.

And why does one prefer (?) over (?) that, you ask? You know two music artists may produce angry music but people still form a preference. I'm sure as a philosopher you'll ask the nature of the preference. I don't believe we are born with it, I believe it is our culture. i.e. My peers had a preference to Metallica but because of you prior musical ventures you had a preference to Megadeth. And how did that come about – geography.

I totally agree a full 100%...so what question is it that made you think I didn't, or suggested anything of the contrary?

Excuse me, but what question?! Why do you keep saying "your question?" What are you...???

And what leap? Are you taking the side of the emotivists? Because it sounds like you are...

Indeed...fun stuff. Coincidently, I came across another article which argued that perhaps the tools (the Appolian) have a bigger role than individuals think. What was argued, was a saying from some famous artist who once said (something along the lines of): When I see Michaelangelo's "David," I don't see art, I see the desecration of marble.

Now, the argument basically went on to state that the tools used have very much to do with how well a piece turns out. After all, why is it that when most people think of "watercolors" they think of flowers and naturesque stuff; when people think of "oils," portraits usually come to mind. Now, this to me sounds a bit on the Cognitivist side, but I like the idea that sometimes the medium (Appolian) helps depict and define the work (Dionysian)...after all, what makes for a better comic book: pencil and ink, or computer, or for that matter, watercolor?

That would be cognitive, not emotional.




It sounds like all of you are leaning to the side of the emotovists...that art is personal, based on one's emotional context, and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

And unfortunately, not much has been produced on emotions in philosophy...so perhaps that's why aestheticism is such a tricky subject.

But, if it is on such a personal level, then how is it so many can personalize the same piece? Why is that a depressing song (take a pick) which is extremely popular is understood and felt as such by so many...whilst, a popular novel with a depressing theme can actually spark a more varied "personal" attachment?

because a song, darling, is 3 minutes long and novel is more well more minutes longer than that. so i think we can fit in a few other connections that can be summed up into a depressing theme.


oh and you are indeed right about the cognitive thing (since youve explained it, thank you for the enlightenment)

Illness

your questions relate to the emotional aspect of art relative to the last two arguments presented my comments are in agreement with your assement of those arguments. That being they are valueless in understanding art.

The second aspect is applying Nietzsche's concept to art. in that the dionysian for art is the emotional response ie the meaning if there is no emotional response then its just a picture, think the diffrence between a travel guide to yellowstone and a book of Adams pictures. For art to be art it most be more then a meaning of a something it most evoke a more intimate relationship with the observe thus under Nietzsche's concept we can assume as it realtes to art the Dionysian is that wmotional response

What am I? can you clarify the question

I dont disagree with either the cogs or the emo's but to art neither argument matters. They are arguments that describe how we relate to art how I feel or why I see/hear somthing a certain way but it tells us nothing about art itself. So they dont mean anything to the topic.

i like the whole appolian / dyonisian thing. i maintain that we like art because we like liking it. the appolian view of art is objective, the dyonisian subjective; we see the trees and extrapolate there being a forest. we see an assortment of brush strokes and extrapolate a picture. we see a bunch of organs and bones and extrapolate a person. the dyonisian aspect of art means we bestow meaning on something which might otherwise be seen as arbitrary, if not random. and we like to think we exist (because existence is what we all love most) and for us to really exist, other things have to exist. that's why we do everything we do, or at least why i do everything i do, because it convinces me i exist and i can derive satisfaction from that. looking at art, reading books, even this discussion makes me feel more alive. more tangible, more objective. i want to exist, and doing all these things makes me feel more like i exist. even negative things work too - i believe that, deep down, we all love negative experiences, heart breaks and the like. we don't like things that threaten our existence, but... whatev