(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 7
From the doubt of Church-Christianity beauty became the standard of good and bad art.
Plato's reasoning about goodness and beauty is confused and full of contradictions. The Europeans sought to set this flawed theory as law in their aesthetics. They twisted the Greek teachings to suit their own mindsets.
They held that the science of aesthetics was founded by the Greeks and disappeared for 1500 years only to be revived in Germany by Baumgarten. But, in fact, it did not disappear because it had never existed at all.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 6
Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal
What is Art?
Chapter 6
The estimation of the value of art depends on the man's perception of the meaning of life. It depends on what they find good and what they find evil. What is good and evil is determined by religion.
There have been men that understood the meaning of life more lucidly and more generally than others. Their expression of the meaning of life, together with superstitions, traditions and ceremonies that surround the memory of these men is what is called religion.
"Religions are the highest exponents of the highest comprehension of life" (Maude, 127). It is for this reason that religions have and always will serve as the basis for the valuation of all human sentiments.
If art coincides with the laws, feelings and tradition of the prevailing religion then it is good art. If not, then it is bad art.
In the beginning of Christianity followers of Christ followed a true version. Subsequently a Church-Christianity arose which paganized and perverted the true religion. The art that arose from Church-Christianity, veneration of saints, paintings of the blessed Virgin and the like were perversions of Christ's teachings but high art nonetheless as it corresponded to the prevailing religion.
When the upper classes saw the contradiction between Church-Christianity and the teachings of Christ they stopped believing the dogma of the Church, but encouraged the lower classes to still follow it blindly as suited their needs. But having wealth and leisure they produced art that was inconsistent with Church-Christianity.
Men like Hus, Luther, Calvin and Wycliffe stripped Christianity of non-Christ teachings.
Those that doubted in the Middle Ages had to seek out an entirely new religion because there was no way to revamp the old mythology. They needed to rid themselves of the perversions of Church-Christianity and follow true Christianity.
But, the upper classes could not or would not do this because it would mean universal brotherhood, and they could not stand for this. These men had no religion. They believed in nothing. But, as they were in possession of the wealth and power, the controlled leisure and thus, art. Under their rule art was borne, not of men's religious feeling, but of the beauty or in other words, the pleasure they received of it.
These men had detected the falsehood of the Church but were unwilling to accept the true Christianity. They returned to the pleasure seeking, to paganism. Then the Renaissance happened: a denial of every religion and the denial of the necessity of religion.
"As soon as doubt arose with the regard to the infallibility of the Pope (and this doubt was then in the minds of all educated people), doubt inevitably followed as to the truth of tradition. But doubt as to the truth of tradition is fatal not only to popery and Catholicism but also to the whole Church creed with all its dogmas; the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity; and it destroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were considered to be inspired only because the tradition of the Church so decided" (Maude, 134).
These people had no religion and no means of which to decide what was good or bad art except by their own pleasure receptors. Thus, the failing of their aesthetic theories.
What is Art?
Chapter 6
The estimation of the value of art depends on the man's perception of the meaning of life. It depends on what they find good and what they find evil. What is good and evil is determined by religion.
There have been men that understood the meaning of life more lucidly and more generally than others. Their expression of the meaning of life, together with superstitions, traditions and ceremonies that surround the memory of these men is what is called religion.
"Religions are the highest exponents of the highest comprehension of life" (Maude, 127). It is for this reason that religions have and always will serve as the basis for the valuation of all human sentiments.
If art coincides with the laws, feelings and tradition of the prevailing religion then it is good art. If not, then it is bad art.
In the beginning of Christianity followers of Christ followed a true version. Subsequently a Church-Christianity arose which paganized and perverted the true religion. The art that arose from Church-Christianity, veneration of saints, paintings of the blessed Virgin and the like were perversions of Christ's teachings but high art nonetheless as it corresponded to the prevailing religion.
When the upper classes saw the contradiction between Church-Christianity and the teachings of Christ they stopped believing the dogma of the Church, but encouraged the lower classes to still follow it blindly as suited their needs. But having wealth and leisure they produced art that was inconsistent with Church-Christianity.
Men like Hus, Luther, Calvin and Wycliffe stripped Christianity of non-Christ teachings.
Those that doubted in the Middle Ages had to seek out an entirely new religion because there was no way to revamp the old mythology. They needed to rid themselves of the perversions of Church-Christianity and follow true Christianity.
But, the upper classes could not or would not do this because it would mean universal brotherhood, and they could not stand for this. These men had no religion. They believed in nothing. But, as they were in possession of the wealth and power, the controlled leisure and thus, art. Under their rule art was borne, not of men's religious feeling, but of the beauty or in other words, the pleasure they received of it.
These men had detected the falsehood of the Church but were unwilling to accept the true Christianity. They returned to the pleasure seeking, to paganism. Then the Renaissance happened: a denial of every religion and the denial of the necessity of religion.
"As soon as doubt arose with the regard to the infallibility of the Pope (and this doubt was then in the minds of all educated people), doubt inevitably followed as to the truth of tradition. But doubt as to the truth of tradition is fatal not only to popery and Catholicism but also to the whole Church creed with all its dogmas; the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and the Trinity; and it destroys the authority of the Scriptures, since they were considered to be inspired only because the tradition of the Church so decided" (Maude, 134).
These people had no religion and no means of which to decide what was good or bad art except by their own pleasure receptors. Thus, the failing of their aesthetic theories.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 5
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Chapter 5
If we push aside the concept of beauty as the foundation of art then what becomes of the definition of art?
Charles Darwin, Schiller, & Spencer: Art is an activity arising in the animal kingdom and springs from sexual desires and the propensity to play.
Grant Allen: Art is an activity accompanied by pleasurable excitement in the nervous system.
Véron: Art is the external manifestation of man's emotions by lines, colors, shapes, etc.
Sully: Art is the production of something which supplies the producer with pleasure and conveys a pleasurable impression to spectators apart from advantage.
While these definitions do alleviate the problems of the metaphysical definitions, they are far from exact.
Darwin/Schiller/Spencer theories do not portray artistic activity, they merely focus on the origin of such activities. Allen's theory is inexact because many other human activities cannot be excluded by this definition. Véron's theory is inexact because a man can express his emotions in this way yet fail to manifest them on others. Sully's theory is in exact because it can include other things that are not art, i.e. gymnastics or magic (or reality TV). Also, poems that are gloomy in nature or stories which are sad may not produce pleasurable feelings in producer or audience and may yet be art.
The inaccuracy of these theories and of the metaphysical theories stem from the fact they consider what pleasure the object may give and not the purpose it may serve to humanity.
To define art we must cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and consider it as a condition of human life. "Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man" (Maude, 120). "Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced or is producing the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously. or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression" (Maude, 120).
Art servers a similar function to speech. By words man transmits his thoughts; by art man transmits his feelings. The artist infects others with his own personal feelings in art. "To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others experience the same feeling - this is the activity of art. Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them" (Maude, 123).
Art is not the manifestation of some idea or God (metaphysical theory). Art is not a game or play (physiological theory). Art is not the expression of man's emotion by external signs. Art is not pleasure. Art is a means of union among men and is indispensable for life and the progress of mankind.
By art man can experience all feelings of all men and transmit his feelings so that all men can experience them. If men lacked the capacity to experience other's feelings, man would be savage and hostile - even more so than he already is.
Art permeates all of man's life, just as speech is not only found in orations, books and sermons, but in every day activity.
What we widely consider art, that which is displayed as such, is merely a small portion of art.
People who repudiate all art art wrong, but no more wrong then those who allow all art so long as it brings pleasure. In fact, those who allow art simply because it is pleasurable do more harm to humanity than those who disallow art because of its infectious nature.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Ch. 4
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 4
All aesthetic theories of beauty lead us to one of two places:
1. Beauty exists in and of itself and has independent existence.
2. Beauty is pleasure we receive without it having personal advantage.
Thus, either beauty is something objective, mystical and complex or very simple, intelligible, and is something that pleases. Both definitions leave us with inexact results. Either beauty is metaphysical-mystical or a special type of enjoyment.
In fact though, the objective perception and the subjective perspective of beauty are on one and the same. "In its objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely perfect, and we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive from the manifestation of this absolute perfection a certain kind of pleasure" (Maude, 113).
All attempts at defining absolute beauty either define nothing at all or only some traits of some artistic production. "There is no objective definition of beauty"(Maude, 114). All theories say the same thing: art is that which makes beauty manifest and beauty is that which pleases. Thus, the science of aesthetics fails what all science must do: define their concepts - in this case: beauty, art and taste.
Folgeldt denies that morality can be included in art because if it did it would exclude works like Romeo and Juliet and Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. But these pieces are in the canon of art and therefore unable to be called non-art. Folgeldt states we can consider importance instead of morality.
The error with aesthetic theories like this is that it first accepts a canon of art and then develops a theory of art to fit the canon.
In order to define any human activity one must understand its sense and importance by examining the activity itself, its causes and effects, not only its relation to how it pleases us.
Tolstoy defines beauty as that which pleases us. As such, he denies that it can serve as the basis for the definition of art in the same way as food's importance to man cannot be defined by the way certain mens' taste for particular items.
Could beauty then be defined as that which pleases God? For that which pleases God can also please man, but something that pleases some men does not please God. Therefore, whatever pleases man, but does not please God is not beautiful, but a distortion of beauty. Is this a possible definition of beauty?
People who assume the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize the true meaning and purpose of art.
"People will come to understand the meaning of art only when the cease to consider that the aim of art is beauty, that is to say, pleasure" (Maude, 117).
To assume beauty as the basis of art makes us impotent in defining art.
If we discuss matters of taste in discussing art then we deny ourselves the chance of defining art. It is the same as trying to argue why one man likes pears and the other peaches. What are widely considered dfinitions of art are actually just ways of justifying certain works of art or genres of art.
What is Art?
Leo Tolstoy
Ch. 4
All aesthetic theories of beauty lead us to one of two places:
1. Beauty exists in and of itself and has independent existence.
2. Beauty is pleasure we receive without it having personal advantage.
Thus, either beauty is something objective, mystical and complex or very simple, intelligible, and is something that pleases. Both definitions leave us with inexact results. Either beauty is metaphysical-mystical or a special type of enjoyment.
In fact though, the objective perception and the subjective perspective of beauty are on one and the same. "In its objective aspect, we call beauty something absolutely perfect, and we acknowledge it to be so only because we receive from the manifestation of this absolute perfection a certain kind of pleasure" (Maude, 113).
All attempts at defining absolute beauty either define nothing at all or only some traits of some artistic production. "There is no objective definition of beauty"(Maude, 114). All theories say the same thing: art is that which makes beauty manifest and beauty is that which pleases. Thus, the science of aesthetics fails what all science must do: define their concepts - in this case: beauty, art and taste.
Folgeldt denies that morality can be included in art because if it did it would exclude works like Romeo and Juliet and Goethe's Wilhelm Meister. But these pieces are in the canon of art and therefore unable to be called non-art. Folgeldt states we can consider importance instead of morality.
The error with aesthetic theories like this is that it first accepts a canon of art and then develops a theory of art to fit the canon.
In order to define any human activity one must understand its sense and importance by examining the activity itself, its causes and effects, not only its relation to how it pleases us.
Tolstoy defines beauty as that which pleases us. As such, he denies that it can serve as the basis for the definition of art in the same way as food's importance to man cannot be defined by the way certain mens' taste for particular items.
Could beauty then be defined as that which pleases God? For that which pleases God can also please man, but something that pleases some men does not please God. Therefore, whatever pleases man, but does not please God is not beautiful, but a distortion of beauty. Is this a possible definition of beauty?
People who assume the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize the true meaning and purpose of art.
"People will come to understand the meaning of art only when the cease to consider that the aim of art is beauty, that is to say, pleasure" (Maude, 117).
To assume beauty as the basis of art makes us impotent in defining art.
If we discuss matters of taste in discussing art then we deny ourselves the chance of defining art. It is the same as trying to argue why one man likes pears and the other peaches. What are widely considered dfinitions of art are actually just ways of justifying certain works of art or genres of art.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 3 (B)
(Originally Written Feb. 29, 2008 in the Journal).
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Lachelier states that beauty is the only truth that is solid and worthy of the name 'truth'.
Taine held that beauty is the manifestation of the essential characteristic of any important idea more completely than it is expressed in reality.
Goyau taught that beauty is not a thing in the object itself, but is the blossoming of the thing onto that which it appears. Art, according to Goyau evokes the deepest consciousness of existence in us and the highest feelings and loftiest thoughts. "Art lifts men from his personal life into the universal life" (Maude, 105).
Cherbuliez held that art is an activity that:
1. Satisfies our innate love of forms
2. Endows form with ideas
3. Afords pleasure to our senses, heart and reason
He held that beauty exists in our souls, not in objects. He rejected absolute beauty.
Coster held that the ideas of the beautiful, the true and the good were innate to us. Those innate ideas illuminate our mind and are identical to God who is Truth, Beauty and Goodness.
Mario Pilo held that beauty is a product of our physical feelings. He held that the aim of art is pleasure, but this pleasure is necessarily highly moral.
Gevaert held art is the connection between the past and the religious ideal of the present.
Sam Pedlan stated that beauty is a manifestation of God. "There is no reality than God, there is no truth than God, there is no beauty than God" (Maude, 106).
Véron rids aesthetics of the idea of absolute beauty. He states art is a manifestation of emotions transmitted by a combination of forms, lines, colors, etc.
The English aesthetic theories state beauty is entirely dependent on the spectator.
Charles Darwin states beauty is not only a feeling of man, but to animals and the ancestors of man. Darwin held that the origin of music lies in the call of males to females for sex.
Herbert Spencer claimed the origin of art is play. Play is animation of real activity; so is art. He claimed that there are three sources of aesthetic pleasure:
1. That which exercises the faculties in the most complete way
2. The difference of stimuli which awakens a glow of agreeable feeling
3. THe practical revival of the same with special combinations
Todhunter claims beauty to be infinite loveliness which we perceive by reason and by enthusiasm of love. He claims that therefore, beauty depends on taste and there is no criterion for taste. He puts forth a cultural definition of beauty.
Grant Allen claims that there is a physical origin of beauty. He held that aesthetic pleasure comes from the contemplation of the beautiful, but the conception of beauty is a physiological process. He claimed that taste can be educated and that the educated men form the the taste of the next generation.
Ker claimed that beauty enables man to make part of the objective world intelligible to us. Art destroys the opposition between the one and the many between the law and its manifestation between the subject and the object.
Sully dismisses the concept of beauty altogether. He defines art as the production of some permanent object or passing action that supplies active enjoyment to the producer and passive pleasure to the spectator.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 3 (A)
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
Baumgarten (the founder of aesthetics) states the object of logical knowledge is truth and the object of aesthetic or sensual knowledge is beauty.
"Beauty is the perfect recognized through the senses; truth is the perfect perceived through reason; goodness is the perfect reached by moral will" (Maude, 92).
Baumgarten sees beauty as a correspondence of the relations of the parts to the parts and of the parts to the whole.
The aim of beauty he states, is to excite a desire.
Baumgarten's followers did nothing more than separate the pleasant from the beautiful.
Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Moritz claimed that the aim of art is not beauty, but goodness.
Johann Georg Sulzer held that which contains goodness can be called beautiful. He contended that the aim of humanity was welfare in social life. He intended to achieve this through moral education; and art, serves this purpose only.
Moses Mendelssohn held that art is the development of beauty until it becomes true and good. He held that the end of art is therefore, moral perfection.
While Baumgarten was concerned with the Perfect or the Absolute, Mendelssohn and Sulzer divided into three forms: truth, goodness and beauty. Beauty then merges back into both the good and the true.
Johann Winckelmann (a German art historian) said that only external beauty is the aim of art. Winckelmann separated beauty from goodness and divided it into three categories:
1. Beauty of form
2. Beauty of idea
3. Beauty of expression
He claimed that beauty of expression could only happen after both beauty of form and beauty of idea had first been accomplished. Winckelmann held that beauty of expression is the highest aim of art. He claimed that it was attained in antique art and therefore, modern art should be aimed at imitating ancient art.
The German aestheticians like Lessing, Herder, and Goethe understood beauty in the way of Winckelmann until Immanuel Kant changed it all.
Aesthetic theories arose in England, France, Italy and Holland that were also equally cloudy and contradictory The started their theories with a conception of the beautiful as existing absolutely and somehow it intermingled with goodness or at least had the same roots as it.
Shaftsbury held that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionable, that which is harmonious and proportionable is true, and what is beautiful and true is agreeable and good. Shaftsbury held that beauty is only recognized by the mind. He held that God is the fundamental beauty and that beauty and goodness proceed from the same fount.
Hutchenson held that the aim of art is beauty. Beauty's essence consists in evoking a perception of uniformity and variety in us. Hutchenson held we are guided by an internal sense to what art is. He also held that in this internal sense one could contradict the ethical sense and that beauty does not always correspond with goodness and could actually run contrary to it.
Lord Kanes held that beauty is what is pleasant. Therefore, for him, beauty rests solely in taste.
Burke held that the sublime and the beautiful were the aim of art and have their origin in self-preservation and society. He also claimed that art is a means for the maintenance of the race through the individual. The first self-preservation (and the preservation of the individual) is through 1) nourishment, 2) defense, and 3) war. The second self-preservation (the preservation of the society) is achieved through 1) sex and 2) propagation. Self-defense and war are the source of the sublime. Sociability and the sex instinct are the source of beauty.
Yves Marie André held that there are three types of beauty:
1. Divine
2. Natural
3. Artificial
Charles Batteux held that art consists in imitating the beauty of nature. The end of art is enjoyment.
The French and the English held that taste decides what is beautiful. They also hold that the laws of taste cannot be determined.
Pagano held that art consists of uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. He held that the capacity to perceive these beauties is taste and the capacity to bring them together is artistic genius. He held that beauty is goodness made visible and that goodness is inner beauty.
Muratori stated that art is an egotistical sensation founded on the desire for the preservation of self and society.
Hemsterhuis, the Dutch writer, influenced the Germans, particularly Goethe. He held that beauty is that which gives the most pleasure. He held that enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest form of cognition to which men can attain.
Kant held that:
1. Man has a knowledge of nature outside him and himself in nature.
2. He seeks truth outside himself. He seeks goodness inside himself.
3. Seeking truth is pure reason. Seeking goodness is practical reason.
4. Aesthetic feeling is a judging capacity without reason and produces pleasure without desire.
5. Beauty is in subjective meaning. It is that which without reasoning and without practical advantages, nonetheless pleases.
Schiller held that the aim of art is beauty, which is the source of pleasure without practical advantage.
Fichte held that the perception of the beautiful proceeds from nature. Nature has two sides; 1) the sum of our limitations and 2) the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the sum of our limitations we see deformity. In the sum of our free idealistic activity we see beauty. He held that beauty therefore does not exist in the world, but in the beautiful soul (Schöner Geist). He also held that art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul and that the aim of art is the education of the whole man.
Schlegel held that beauty is understood too incompletely. He held that beauty is in art, nature and love. The truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature and love.
Adam Müller held that there are two types of beauty:
1. General beauty which attracts people as the sun attracts the planets
2. Individual beauty which consists in the observer becoming like the sun and attracting beauty.
Thus, a world which harmonizes all contradictions is the highest beauty. He held that art is a reproduction of this universal harmony and that the highest art is the art of life.
Schelling held "art is the production or result of that conception of things by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject" (Maude, 99). He held that beauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. The chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art unites the subjective and the objective, nature with reason and the unconscious with the conscious. He held that because of this, art is the highest means of knowledge. "Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype" (Maude, 99). The artist does not produce the beautiful by knowledge or skill, but by the beauty inside himself.
Krause held that positive beauty is the manifestation of the idea in an individual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existent in man's free spirit.
Hegel held that God manifests himself in nature and art as beauty. God manifests himself in two ways: on the object in nature and in the subject in spirit. Only the soul and what pertains to it is truly beautiful. The beauty of nature is only the reflection of a spiritual content. The sensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance and this is the only reality of the beautiful. Art, religion and philosophy are means of being and expressing to the consciousness the deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit. Hegel held that truth and beauty are one and the same. The idea as itself is truth. The idea, manifested externally, is beauty.
Weisse held that art is the introduction of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into the external, dead, indifferent matter. Weisse held that the idea of truth entails a contradiction between the subjective and the objective and then the individual ego discerns the universal. Beauty is a reconciled truth.
In addition to Hegelian aesthetic theories there were contemporary and contradictory German theories like Herbart's and Schopenhauer's.
Hebart denied that there can be such a thing as beauty in itself. He held that there are certain relations we call beautiful and that art consists of finding these relations.
Schopenhauer held that the will objectifies itself in the world on various planes. The highest plane has the highest beauty but, each plane contains its own beauty.
Hartmann held that beauty lies in the seeming or "schien" produced by the artist. "The thing in itself is not beautiful, but it is transformed into beauty by the artist".
Schnaase held that there is no beauty in the world. Art gives what nature cannot. Beauty is disclosed then in art.
Kirchmann held there are six realms of history:
1. Knowledge
2. Wealth
3. Morality
4. Faith
5. Politics
6. Beauty - this is art.
Helmholtz held that beauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously and therefore cannot be analyzed.
Bergmann denied defining beauty objectively is possible. He held that beauty is held subjectively and therefore the job of aesthetics is to define what pleases whom.
Jungmann held that:
1. Beauty is a suprasensible quality of things.
2. Beauty produces pleasure by contemplation
3. Beauty is the foundation of love.
Cousin held beauty always has a moral foundation.
Jouffrey held that the visible world is the clothing by means of which we see beauty.
Lévêque held that beauty was a force behind nature and revealed itself in ordered energy.
Ravaisson held that beauty was the ultimate aim and purpose of the world.
Baumgarten (the founder of aesthetics) states the object of logical knowledge is truth and the object of aesthetic or sensual knowledge is beauty.
"Beauty is the perfect recognized through the senses; truth is the perfect perceived through reason; goodness is the perfect reached by moral will" (Maude, 92).
Baumgarten sees beauty as a correspondence of the relations of the parts to the parts and of the parts to the whole.
The aim of beauty he states, is to excite a desire.
Baumgarten's followers did nothing more than separate the pleasant from the beautiful.
Sulzer, Mendelssohn and Moritz claimed that the aim of art is not beauty, but goodness.
Johann Georg Sulzer held that which contains goodness can be called beautiful. He contended that the aim of humanity was welfare in social life. He intended to achieve this through moral education; and art, serves this purpose only.
Moses Mendelssohn held that art is the development of beauty until it becomes true and good. He held that the end of art is therefore, moral perfection.
While Baumgarten was concerned with the Perfect or the Absolute, Mendelssohn and Sulzer divided into three forms: truth, goodness and beauty. Beauty then merges back into both the good and the true.
Johann Winckelmann (a German art historian) said that only external beauty is the aim of art. Winckelmann separated beauty from goodness and divided it into three categories:
1. Beauty of form
2. Beauty of idea
3. Beauty of expression
He claimed that beauty of expression could only happen after both beauty of form and beauty of idea had first been accomplished. Winckelmann held that beauty of expression is the highest aim of art. He claimed that it was attained in antique art and therefore, modern art should be aimed at imitating ancient art.
The German aestheticians like Lessing, Herder, and Goethe understood beauty in the way of Winckelmann until Immanuel Kant changed it all.
Aesthetic theories arose in England, France, Italy and Holland that were also equally cloudy and contradictory The started their theories with a conception of the beautiful as existing absolutely and somehow it intermingled with goodness or at least had the same roots as it.
Shaftsbury held that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionable, that which is harmonious and proportionable is true, and what is beautiful and true is agreeable and good. Shaftsbury held that beauty is only recognized by the mind. He held that God is the fundamental beauty and that beauty and goodness proceed from the same fount.
Hutchenson held that the aim of art is beauty. Beauty's essence consists in evoking a perception of uniformity and variety in us. Hutchenson held we are guided by an internal sense to what art is. He also held that in this internal sense one could contradict the ethical sense and that beauty does not always correspond with goodness and could actually run contrary to it.
Lord Kanes held that beauty is what is pleasant. Therefore, for him, beauty rests solely in taste.
Burke held that the sublime and the beautiful were the aim of art and have their origin in self-preservation and society. He also claimed that art is a means for the maintenance of the race through the individual. The first self-preservation (and the preservation of the individual) is through 1) nourishment, 2) defense, and 3) war. The second self-preservation (the preservation of the society) is achieved through 1) sex and 2) propagation. Self-defense and war are the source of the sublime. Sociability and the sex instinct are the source of beauty.
Yves Marie André held that there are three types of beauty:
1. Divine
2. Natural
3. Artificial
Charles Batteux held that art consists in imitating the beauty of nature. The end of art is enjoyment.
The French and the English held that taste decides what is beautiful. They also hold that the laws of taste cannot be determined.
Pagano held that art consists of uniting the beauties dispersed in nature. He held that the capacity to perceive these beauties is taste and the capacity to bring them together is artistic genius. He held that beauty is goodness made visible and that goodness is inner beauty.
Muratori stated that art is an egotistical sensation founded on the desire for the preservation of self and society.
Hemsterhuis, the Dutch writer, influenced the Germans, particularly Goethe. He held that beauty is that which gives the most pleasure. He held that enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest form of cognition to which men can attain.
Kant held that:
1. Man has a knowledge of nature outside him and himself in nature.
2. He seeks truth outside himself. He seeks goodness inside himself.
3. Seeking truth is pure reason. Seeking goodness is practical reason.
4. Aesthetic feeling is a judging capacity without reason and produces pleasure without desire.
5. Beauty is in subjective meaning. It is that which without reasoning and without practical advantages, nonetheless pleases.
Schiller held that the aim of art is beauty, which is the source of pleasure without practical advantage.
Fichte held that the perception of the beautiful proceeds from nature. Nature has two sides; 1) the sum of our limitations and 2) the sum of our free idealistic activity. In the sum of our limitations we see deformity. In the sum of our free idealistic activity we see beauty. He held that beauty therefore does not exist in the world, but in the beautiful soul (Schöner Geist). He also held that art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul and that the aim of art is the education of the whole man.
Schlegel held that beauty is understood too incompletely. He held that beauty is in art, nature and love. The truly beautiful is expressed by the union of art, nature and love.
Adam Müller held that there are two types of beauty:
1. General beauty which attracts people as the sun attracts the planets
2. Individual beauty which consists in the observer becoming like the sun and attracting beauty.
Thus, a world which harmonizes all contradictions is the highest beauty. He held that art is a reproduction of this universal harmony and that the highest art is the art of life.
Schelling held "art is the production or result of that conception of things by which the subject becomes its own object, or the object its own subject" (Maude, 99). He held that beauty is the perception of the infinite in the finite. The chief characteristic of works of art is unconscious infinity. Art unites the subjective and the objective, nature with reason and the unconscious with the conscious. He held that because of this, art is the highest means of knowledge. "Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves as they exist in the prototype" (Maude, 99). The artist does not produce the beautiful by knowledge or skill, but by the beauty inside himself.
Krause held that positive beauty is the manifestation of the idea in an individual form; art is the actualization of the beauty existent in man's free spirit.
Hegel held that God manifests himself in nature and art as beauty. God manifests himself in two ways: on the object in nature and in the subject in spirit. Only the soul and what pertains to it is truly beautiful. The beauty of nature is only the reflection of a spiritual content. The sensuous manifestation of spirit is only appearance and this is the only reality of the beautiful. Art, religion and philosophy are means of being and expressing to the consciousness the deepest problems of humanity and the highest truths of the spirit. Hegel held that truth and beauty are one and the same. The idea as itself is truth. The idea, manifested externally, is beauty.
Weisse held that art is the introduction of the absolute spiritual reality of beauty into the external, dead, indifferent matter. Weisse held that the idea of truth entails a contradiction between the subjective and the objective and then the individual ego discerns the universal. Beauty is a reconciled truth.
In addition to Hegelian aesthetic theories there were contemporary and contradictory German theories like Herbart's and Schopenhauer's.
Hebart denied that there can be such a thing as beauty in itself. He held that there are certain relations we call beautiful and that art consists of finding these relations.
Schopenhauer held that the will objectifies itself in the world on various planes. The highest plane has the highest beauty but, each plane contains its own beauty.
Hartmann held that beauty lies in the seeming or "schien" produced by the artist. "The thing in itself is not beautiful, but it is transformed into beauty by the artist".
Schnaase held that there is no beauty in the world. Art gives what nature cannot. Beauty is disclosed then in art.
Kirchmann held there are six realms of history:
1. Knowledge
2. Wealth
3. Morality
4. Faith
5. Politics
6. Beauty - this is art.
Helmholtz held that beauty is manifested by the artist unconsciously and therefore cannot be analyzed.
Bergmann denied defining beauty objectively is possible. He held that beauty is held subjectively and therefore the job of aesthetics is to define what pleases whom.
Jungmann held that:
1. Beauty is a suprasensible quality of things.
2. Beauty produces pleasure by contemplation
3. Beauty is the foundation of love.
Cousin held beauty always has a moral foundation.
Jouffrey held that the visible world is the clothing by means of which we see beauty.
Lévêque held that beauty was a force behind nature and revealed itself in ordered energy.
Ravaisson held that beauty was the ultimate aim and purpose of the world.
Notes on Tolstoy, What is Art? Chapter 2
(Originally Written Feb. 28, 2008 in the Journal)
What is Art?
Chapter 2
Tolstoy is angered about the money that the government gives to the arts by taking money from the poor who never get to experience what their money goes to.
We must decide if art is so good and so important as to redeem the evil that art causes.
Art lies between the practically useful and all unsuccessful attempts at art.
The common answer to what is art? Is that which creates beauty. The problem with this answer is that it assumes the concept of beauty is fully known. But, it is obscure and cloudy.
In Russian, the word Krasotá (beauty) means only that which pleases the sight.
Could beauty be defined as "that which pleases the senses" so long as we include an ethical, moral and religious sense to the other five senses?
The concept of good (in Russian) entails the concept of beauty, but the concept of beauty (in Russian) does not entail the concept of good. In every other European language beauty and good are conceptually synonymous. But, these other languages now have no suitable word to express beauty of form.
What is Art?
Chapter 2
Tolstoy is angered about the money that the government gives to the arts by taking money from the poor who never get to experience what their money goes to.
We must decide if art is so good and so important as to redeem the evil that art causes.
Art lies between the practically useful and all unsuccessful attempts at art.
The common answer to what is art? Is that which creates beauty. The problem with this answer is that it assumes the concept of beauty is fully known. But, it is obscure and cloudy.
In Russian, the word Krasotá (beauty) means only that which pleases the sight.
Could beauty be defined as "that which pleases the senses" so long as we include an ethical, moral and religious sense to the other five senses?
The concept of good (in Russian) entails the concept of beauty, but the concept of beauty (in Russian) does not entail the concept of good. In every other European language beauty and good are conceptually synonymous. But, these other languages now have no suitable word to express beauty of form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)