(Originally written July 21, 2007 in Book 25)
OK, making a mature aesthetic judgment involves a number of steps
(Infancy)
1) Surface judgment: at best a superficial judgment, at worst, not an aesthetic judgment at all. We can all this an aesthetic lust feeling.
(Childhood)
2) Sensory judgment: an aesthetic judgment based on the perceivable qualities of the thing. This judgment takes a look at the thing as a whole and as a composite of parts. It is solely reliant on judging the form of the thing.
(Adolescence)
3) Historical judgment: an aesthetic judgment that reaches beyond aesthetic considerations. It takes into account the background and circumstances of the thing and the creator of the thing.
(Maturity)
4) Introspective judgment: an aesthetic judgment that takes into consideration the effect that the thing has on its viewer(s). What emotions or feelings or memories does the thing arouse?
(Full Maturity)
5) Mystic Artistic Judgment: an aesthetic judgment that involves the union of the thing and the viewer. This is how we get lost in the thing and how we can become one with it. This can happen with movies, music, art, landscape and whatever is beautiful.
Each stage of aesthetic judgment involves a deeper understanding of the beauty of the thing and the nature of beauty itself. When we make a stage three aesthetic judgment we draw on stages one and two. When we make a stage five aesthetic judgment we draw on the other four stages. Sometimes the process of moving from stage one to stage five is a long process; but, at other times it moves quickly and we are unaware of the process at all, i.e. when we are completely overcome in an instance by a sunset.
When making a surface aesthetic judgment (stage 1) there are no degrees of variance. It is a snap judgment involving no further thought. It is simply our first impression. Once we begin to think on it more closely we move into stage 2.
Likewise the Mystic Artist judgment (stage 5) has no degrees. We can either be one with the thing or we can be separate. However there are variances when it comes to the length of the union. Some unions may last a single instance while others may have a long duration.
But the middle stages can vary by degree. We can have varying appreciations of the form of a thing; we can have varying understanding of a thing's history; and, we can pursue introspection at various levels. Thus, there can be varying degrees within the middle three levels of aesthetic judgment.
Now, I believe we have come to a satisfactory conclusion on how one makes aesthetic judgments. All people are capable of doing so because we are inherently aesthetic creatures. Some are more in tune with aesthetic sensibilities than others. Some are so because of a natural aptitude. My brother and D__ are both incredible artists. They have a natural inclination for artistry and artistic appreciation that I do not possess. But, luckily for myself and for others who are not so aesthetically inclined we can pursue this and grow to have an aesthetic outlook on life.
Since we have come to a conclusion on how we make aesthetic judgments, the next question to ask is this: is beauty contains within the thing itself or is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
The fact that some cultures esteem one thing as beautiful and other cultures do not is undeniable. Also, individual persons may find something beautiful that others find ugly. But does this demand that beauty be subjective or that judgments on beauty are purely subjective?
I think we can come to a conclusion on this matter by retiring to the stages of aesthetic judgment. Many people operate aesthetically on the first level, the surface level. They look at a thing and they exclaim, "this is beautiful" and then they walk away. Next they look at a thing and say, "this is ugly" and again walk away. Conversely, another person can glance at these two things and come to the exact opposite conclusion. Rather than conceding to a purely subjective view of beauty based out this account I would venture to suggest that these judgments only prove that people do not take aesthetic considerations seriously enough.
Imagine for a moment if these two people went through the stages of aesthetic judgment and searched for beauty in the surface, the form, the history and introspectively. I truly believe they would come to a common view that this thing is in fact beautiful. But what if they don't?
Can an aesthetic judgment, a mature, well-thought aesthetic judgment be wrong? Think for a moment if a person who pondered on the Mona Lisa and came to the conclusion that this was in fact, ugly. In order to achieve level five of aesthetic judgments, the mystical union between thing and viewer one must appreciate the beauty of thing thing. Obviously this man has not achieved this stage because he has judged it as ugly. But does this mean his judgment is wrong?
On a purely intellectual level I would say that this man is most definitely wrong. The form of the Mona Lisa is enough to show that this thing is a beautiful ting. But, that a thing is beautiful does not necessitate that a person must enjoy it. In fact, if given a chance to choose between the Mona Lisa and the Temptation of St. Anthony to be sitting on my mantle I would choose Dali. Does this mean that I see that the Dali is more beautiful than the DaVinci? No, all it states is that my taste, my preference is more abstract.
The problem of objective beauty comes, not from a philosophy of art situation, but from a confusion of the concepts of taste and beauty.
The concept of beauty is the notion that something is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. if beauty exists than it is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. A thing is said to be beautiful if and only if it is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. The opposite of beauty is ugly. The concept of ugly is the idea that something is unworthy of aesthetic appreciation. In order to be judged aesthetically a thing must be an aesthetic object, which we will come to later.
Now, the concept of taste is the notion of personal preferences. That someone would prefer X to Y is a judgment of taste, not a judgment of beauty. Aesthetic judgments must be judgments of beauty (or ugly) and nothing else. As soon as we introduce personal preference into the equation we muddle and confuse the whole process.
The distinction between taste and beauty is not an arbitrary one. It explains why beautiful things can be disliked. If we were purely aesthetic creatures there would be no distinction. If we were purely aesthetic creatures we would always like that which is beautiful and dislike what is ugly. But as it stands we are composite creatures with aesthetic, moral, intellectual, social and other natures meshed into one. Therefore we do not always like that which is beautiful and dislike that which is ugly and thus, we have the concept of last.
The Passion of Christ or Schindler's List are aesthetically beautiful movies. The imagery in both is quite extraordinary. Some people may dislike the gruesomeness of the Passion (and others may not agree with its historicity, morals, etc). Schindler's List is also a hauntingly beautiful movie and though some may dislike the idea of making movies about the holocaust it does not detract from its aesthetic quality. Personally, I recognize the beauty of these films but am not in any rush to add them to my DVD collection. I have an appreciation for them aesthetically, but my personal preference is not to watch them again. Search within yourself and I'm sure you will find a situation that highlights a tension between the sense of beauty and your own personal preferences.
Beauty is entailed in the thing itself. When a thing is truly beautiful then one can go through the stages of aesthetic judgment and become one with the thing. Beauty as such is objective and untainted by subjectivity.
Taste on the other hand is wholly and utterly subjective. It is individual, though it may arise out of socio-political traditions. Whether one likes a thing or dislikes a thing has no bearing on the beauty of a thing. I dislike the beach, but my dislike of it cannot detract from its beauty whatsoever.
When we confuse judgments of beauty and judgments of taste we introduce a problem that need not exist: that of the objectivity of beauty. This problem arises out of the fact that our own tastes can stand as a barrier to appreciating what is beautiful. Our own personal preferences and prejudices may hinder us from actually making any type of aesthetic judgment.
Now I feel confident in stating that we have come to a satisfactory conclusion on how one judges beauty and whether beauty is subjective or objective. What next? Where do we head from here? Next we will consider what is an aesthetic object?
An aesthetic object is one that we can pass an aesthetic judgment on. We are, among other things, aesthetic creatures. As such, our aesthetic natures can lead us to judge everything aesthetically.
Aesthetic judgments take time and effort. Making an aesthetic judgment about something specifically created as a piece of art takes less effort to begin the process of making an aesthetic judgment, though it takes more to complete it. The pen I am writing with however was created to be a pen. If I were to take on the task of judging it aesthetically it would take a lot of straining to start the process though I would finish rather quickly after starting.
If the pen are lying on the table and I saw it I would make my surface judgment. It is plain, neither ugly nor beautiful. it is somewhere intermediate. Moving past the surface level I can admire the complex combination of its straightness and roundness. The pen is very bright white and has black ends. The color combination is very good, simple and sleek. With effort and work I have begun to make an a second level aesthetic judgment.
Now if I were so inclined I could continue up the stages until I could possibly even reach the mystical artistic union and become one with the pen. However, to spare you from reading that and from me wasting time on it, let it suffice that things that are not intentional aesthetic objects can be made so by aesthetic beings. This process may be difficult, tiresome and maybe even (as is the case here) pointless. But there are cases when a thing is intended to be a non-aesthetic object with aesthetic qualities.
We could stick with the pen analogy here as well. For instance, rather than using a Bic round stic I could be writing with a 14K gold pen or some other ornate writing utensil. In this case the thing would be a functional, non-aesthetic object that incorporates aesthetic qualities and thus, the aesthetic judgment process would not be so futile on a non-aesthetic object. Luxury cars, fine china, silverware and especially architecture first this category well.
Thus, we have a range of things to be judged aesthetically. At the lowest level we have non-aesthetic objects, which we must strain ourselves to judge aesthetically. Higher than this we have non-aesthetic objects with aesthetic qualities. These things have primary purposes and functions that are outside the realm of art but are nonetheless artistic. These objects prove easier to judge aesthetically and allow for truly mature aesthetic judgments. At the highest level we have aesthetic objects, or otherwise, art.
At this point we must ask ourselves a fundamental question of aesthetics: what is art? In some cases it is obvious that a thing is an art object, i.e. the Mona Lisa. In other cases it is obvious that a thing is not an art object, i.e. my Bic pen. Unfortunately, the answer to this question does not always involve clear cut cases of art and non-art.
What differentiates non-aesthetic objects from aesthetic objects? That is, what differentiates art from non-art? First and foremost I believe that it is purpose and meaning that distinguishes art from non-art. It is true that we can make aesthetic judgments about non-aesthetic objects, especially those who possess some aesthetic qualities. But why should we limit art by purpose? What keeps us from stating that a Rolls Royce is an art object?
A Rolls Royce is undeniably a gorgeous automobile. It is fashionable, stylish, crafted with perfection, but it is most importantly and most primarily, an automobile. The purpose of an automobile is to be driven. What its aesthetic features are like are secondary. A Rolls Royce is driven in a similar fashion to a Ford Escort. While these two automobiles differ tremendously in appearance and vehicular performance they share their primary function: to be driven.
What though of museums and collectors which house luxury cars like Rolls Royces an display them as art? How a thing is used does not change its primary function. If I were so inclined or ignorant to the primary function of a fork I could use it to comb my hair. But my choice to comb my hair with a fork does not change that fork's primary function as an eating utensil.
Art is distinguished from all other things by its primary function. Other things can be used as art objects but they are nonetheless non-aesthetic objects. How we choose to use a thing does not change that thing's primary function or purpose.
So, the next question would be what is the primary purpose or function of art? Because art is so diverse and widespread to include literature to cinema to painting to sculpture to music defining a primary function of art as a whole is difficult. In order to define art we must find its primary purpose. In order to be general enough to incorporate all genres of art we cannot focus on how art is perceived or created. The definition of art can only be ascertained by discerning its primary function.
Art, first and foremost, is a way of saying something. It si tool of relating some intended message. As such, art is a language. The primary purpose of art is that it is a way for the artist to communicate something that is inside of himself to an audience. This audience can be as massive as the entire world or as small as only the artist himself. Who the audience is not essential. What matters is is that the artist has sought to communicate something and rather than using ordinary language he has chosen to use a universal language: art.
No comments:
Post a Comment