Aesthetics Lecture Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture Notes...

Description

Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art

Lecture 1 – An Introduction to Philosophy and Art.       



    

Relationship between Philosophy and Art: Closest to relationship with science than relationship with religion. Any study of philosophy of art is also at the same time a study of the history of philosophy – have to look at the philosopher’s perspective on being as well as theirs on art – symbiotic Plato: truth is through thought alone; art as sense experience is deceitful/immoral. Aristotle: truth through experience; art can give us truth. Hutcheson: truth is what the subject, understood as a stable substance, perceives; art causes a feeling when it possesses certain objective qualities. Hume: truth is known through experience and inductions made about experience, or just mathematical tautologies; causes subjective feeling and we can’t know anything about inner objective causes, in habit of inducing certain artworks to be better than us. Distinction between Philosophy of Art and Aesthetics: o POA: general term for any philosophy dealing with art. o POA: can be found in any historical period of philosophy. o o

POA: any conceptual engagement with art. Aes: a specific form of the POA that narrows the question of art to one of psychological

o

experiences. Aes: distinctively post-Cartesian: art exists as an affect of the subject.

o Aes: usually limited to our perception of the beautiful/sublime. What is art? ‘Art’ can still mean something practical and skill based – e.g the art of war. Practical, ability, knowledge and efficiency. Call the painting/symphony because of the craft and skill involved in creating it. Art/fine art is more than skill.

Plato Book 10 – The craftsman.        

Art and artists should be expelled from the republic. Talking about poetry – highest art for the Greeks at the time; music/theatre didn’t really exist as art forms at this time or weren’t taken as seriously. The poetry he is referencing is Homer – hard to remove religion from this work; used to assist people in making sense of their lives however may be believed as fact. Imitation – mimesis. Postulate a form > extract example (plurality of things to which we give the same name > discover what it is. A single form of couch/table – the creator of it looks at the appropriate form and then one craftsman will create the couch, another will create the table – but neither creator is the creator of the form. Creation of something involves knowledge and understanding a form/principle which is used to create. A person who can create all the objects which the individual craftsman can create; can also create all the things that grow out of the earth.

 

  

 

 



This kind of workmanship is often practised – through art/poetry in which the artist/poet pretends to do what God does. ‘take a mirror and carry it with you wherever you go. That way you’ll soon create the sun and the heavenly bodies, soon create the earth, soon create yourself, other living creatures, furniture, plants, and all the things we’ve just been talking about’ (596d) – what Socrates believes the artist does. You can create things as they appear to be but not as they truly are – like the real thing but not the real thing, copying appearance not being. Three sorts of couch: the one which exists in the natural order of things (the form), the one made by the craftsman (physical particular), and the one made by the painter (imitation). God has only made one couch in the natural order of things – if you have created the perfect thing of a form, you cannot make another; any other is just a copy – God is the true creator of the true couch, that is why it was given an essentially unique nature. The painter is an imitator of what craftsmen make – the ‘imitator’ is the maker of the product which is two removed from nature. Is he trying to imitate the thing itself (form) or the work of the craftsmen? o Imitating the work of the craftsmen – what is, as it is or what appears as it appears? (imitation of appearance or of truth). o Art of imitation a far cry from truth – it grasps just a little of each thing and only an image at that. A painter can paint a craftsmen doing their craft but may know nothing of the skill they are exhibiting, just what it looks like when they do it. When someone says they know of a man who has knowledge of all crafts, and of all the things each individual practitioner can know and that their knowledge is more accurate than anyone else’s – the person is a simpleton as they cannot distinguish between knowledge and ignorance/imitation. It is claimed that tragedians know about all the arts and about everything human and divine. o These works are twice removed from the real thing and is easy to recreate as it is appearances not realities they are creating.

Notes  Origin of ‘art’ – Ancient Greek verb artizein (to prepare), Latin ars/artem (practical skill, closer to techne).  Techne the knowledge of principles that allows someone to do something practical – not completely practical, but a combination of theory and practice.  Art, or fine art, do not want to be techne – the work goes beyond the skills of production (poesis) and representation (mimesis).  In philosophy of art this is paralleled by a distinction between that which is beautiful or sublime vs that which is merely practically useful. Plato and Aristotle  On art they agree that fine art is the techne mimiteke – the skill of imitation or representation.  Mimesis is: imitation, representation, copying, presentation, reproduction.  Imitation is the literal translation.  Seems obvious to describe art as imitation; the statue of David imitates David; but does it really or does it imitate manliness or male beauty? Is the imitation involved the essential component of it? Is it representation or signification that makes it good art?  Concept of imitation seems natural at first, but it is not a perfect fit to our modern concept of art, which would include all different examples of art in all its forms.  Plato and Aristotle’s basic experience of art is very different to what it is now.



As this modern phenomenon of art has its lineage in the Platonic and Aristotelian experience of imitation, we can learn a lot from these Ancient Greek origins.

Plato’s Rejection of Art  Poetry, tragedy, sculpture and everything we would describe as art were of paramount important in Greek culture.  Art was how the Greeks found meaning and placed themselves within the world.  Ancient Greek religion inseparable from art – fundamental, moreso than science and technology for us today.  In the attack on imitation in the Republic, Socrates has a certain hesitation ‘no man is worth more than the truth’ (595c).  Typical example of Socratic ‘irony’ but are able to take it at face value.  Socrates has affection (philia) and respect or awe (aidos) for Homer; however as a philosopher the only love and respect he is permitted to have is the love and respect for heavenly wisdom (Sophia) – Socrates must resist his earthly passion for Homer and redirect it towards the truth, i.e, the forms.  Socrates begins with an abstract statement of a familiar doctrine: o We generally postulate a certain form of character – a single form or character, always – for each plurality of things to which we give the same name. (596a).  This is the doctrine of the forms; in the Phaedo, Socrates introduces the doctrine through opposition of experience and knowledge: I cannot ever experience ‘equality’, all I experience is ‘two equal sticks’ but to know them as being equal I must have recollected the idea of equality from another world.  In the simile of the line, earlier in the Republic Socrates describes the forms ontologically, i.e regarding being.  Particulars, objects of experience (said post-Kant), are kind of in being and kind of not, because they can come to be and be destroyed. The forms, are entirely stable and always exist externally.  Here, Socrates introduces the forms in terms of ‘singularity’ and ‘plurality’.  Socrates describes the forms as a method of giving a plurality of things the same name and idea, form – this allows Socrates to, later in the text, compare the modes of production of three different types of maker. Maker Product Number God Form of table One Artisan Actual tables Many Imitator Nothing real None  Socrates argues that God would only create one thing for each type of thing because it would be the perfect thing. Therefore any second ‘perfect table’ would just be a copy of the original.  The Artisan, the carpenter, can make a copy of that original table, but it has being because it is born of a particular techne that involves the knowledge of the form of table: carpentry.  The poet or the one who is skilled at imitation only knows how to imitate the mere appearance of the thing, which means he gives us nothing, a mere shadow.  From this we get two statements: o ‘This kind of workmanship is often – and easily – practiced. I supposed the quickest way is if you care to take a mirror and carry it around with you wherever

you go. That way you’ll create the sun and the heavenly bodies, soon create the earth, soon create yourself, other living creatures, furniture, plants, and all the things we’ve just been talking about’ (596d-e). o ‘In that case, this is what the writer of tragedies, if he is an imitator, will be. Someone whose nature it is to be two removes from the king (i.e God) and the truth’ (597e).  From here, we can distinguish two aspects of what Socrates’ problem with art is: o It is incapable of bringing us to the truth. o It indulges us in vices that take us away from the truth.  These claims are linked.  For Plato, to know good is to be good, the way to an ethical, moral and happy life is through thinking and philosophy, not indulging the body.  Since Plato has described imitation as pleasing the eyes and the ears, we have to say that art has nothing to do with thinking and nothing to do with the truth if we are to follow Plato. Aristotle and the Benefits of Art  For Plato, his metaphysics: his ontology and epistemology, prevent him from accepting art.  Direct opposite of philosophy to find awe and admiration for the sensory world (aesthesis) rather than for the truth in the forms and ideas.  Aristotle agrees with Plato that the being of a thing is found in its form; however he believes the form of something is given in experience and is part of the thing, rather than something that exists elsewhere.  For Aristotle, the way the carpenter makes the table, is to have knowledge of the form of a table and then form inert matter (wood) into a table.  To put it another way, the carpenter stamps the being of tableness upon the table, and this being is what allows the table to remain and keep itself as a table; if it is broken up then the form of tableness would be removed and it would become something else.  The form, the essence or ‘the what it is to be that thing’ (to ti hen einai) is fused with matter, or rather imposed on matter, binds matter together and forces it to be that thing.  Human souls can perceive the form in matter, this, for Aristotle, is one of many things that brings us ‘above’ the animals.  How does this help us with imitation? Well it means that imitation is not necessarily bad anymore – even if imitating a thing is not the same as crafting it, the being of the thing is, with Aristotle, part of the appearance of the thing, not separated and removed.  This means it is possible for the imitator to imitate form, even if they do not imitate the matter of something; if Van Gogh draws a sunflower, he has not imitated the form and matter of a sunflower, but he has imitated sunflower-ness.  Because of this, Aristotle is comfortable seeing imitation as a form of knowledge and a vital one: o ‘It is clear that the general origin of poetry was due to two causes, each of them a part of human nature. Imitation is natural to man from childhood, one of his advantages over the lower animals being this, that he is them most imitative creature in the world, and learns at first by imitation. And it is also natural for all to delight in the works of imitation’ (144b1).



 

   

Poetry came about because humans, by nature, long to imitate. It is part of our nature – we delight in it; why we do this is something he takes from Plato and disagrees with him about, is that we learn through the imitation. o ‘Though the objects themselves may be painful to see, we delight to view the most realistic representations of them in art, the forms for example of the lowest animals and of dead bodies. The explanation is to be found in a further fact: to be learning something is the greatest of pleasures not only to the philosopher but also to the rest of mankind, however small their capacity for it; the reason of the delight in seeing the picture is that one is at the same time learning-gathering the meaning of things, e.g that the man there is so-and-so; for if one has not seen the thing before, one’s pleasure will not be in the picture as imitation of it, but will be due to the execution or colouring or some similar cause’ (1448b1). The most notable thing Aristotle has to say about what poetry and art can teach us is the concept of katharsis (pleasure of cleaning the soul). Best explained through Aristotle’s defence of tragedy – tragedy shows bad things happening so why do we enjoy it? o ‘A tragedy, then, is the imitation of an action that is serios and also, as having magnitude, complete in itself; in language with pleasurable accessories, each kind brought in separately in the parts of the work; in a dramatic, not in a narrative form; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions. (1449b). We can describe a tragedy as a form of imitation – events are imitated and such events are of serious and woeful stature. For Aristotle it is not even the particular characters that are being imitated but the situation that could happen to any of us. This allows us to feel pity and fear, and emotion, which Plato would not allow. For Aristotle this is good for us because it allows us to experience something safely, without any actual harm caused, and allows us to emotionally prepare for a situation in which we truly have to deal with them in life.

The Republic  A fault in the founding of the city/society/culture.  Refusal to accept any of the imitative part of poetry.  Already distinguished elements of the soul.  Classic Socratic dialectic method.  States what he intends to prove at first: ‘imitative poetry is the last thing we should allow’ (595b); ‘a destructive influence on the minds of those who hear it.’ (595b).  Uses examples and comparisons of carpenters, painters and poets.  Only solution is knowledge and understanding of what imitation really is.  Homer the teacher and guide of all tragedians but is not worth more than the truth.  The truth should have consistent priority over all else, as it allows one to be closer to virtue.  Begins Socratic method: what the thing ‘imitation’ is; postulation of a certain form/character (imitation) for each plurality of things to which we give the same name.  Looks at the single form of a table – the carpenter would look at the form of a table; for each type of furniture the person who makes it looks at the appropriate form.  The form itself is not the work of a craftsmen; but the creator of all things is a jack of all trades and is a genius.

      

Can create anything by putting a mirror to them; but you will only recreate the appearance of these things and not recreate them as they truly are – imitation of appearance but not the things as they really are. A painter does not create real things, but creates a permanent mirror of an appearance of things; ‘I could create them as they as they appear to be. But not, I take it, as they truly are’ (596e). The carpenter who makes a table – creates a particular table but not the form or character which has the essential nature of ‘table’. They create something like the real table – will inevitably vary from recreation to recreation and none can be exactly identical in appearance and nature of the form of the table. ‘let’s not find it at all surprising if the carpenter’s [table], too, is in fact rather shadowy by comparison with truth’ (597b). Questions the identity of the imitator. Using the example of a table, there are three sorts of table: o The one existing in the natural order of things (the work of the creator). (potentially problematic o o

with reference to a divine creator – issue of philosophy of religion/ontology). The one created by the carpenter/craftsmen (physical replica) The one created by the painter/imitator (appearance replica).



The original creator, from choice or so that there is only one form of table, has not made more than one couch in the natural order of things there is just the one table. o Making two would have made more replications. o Wanted it to give it an essentially unique nature.



The painter/imitator is not a craftsmen or creator as he imitates what craftsmen make, which they do by reference to the original form of the object. The imitator is thus two removes from nature and the truth. o Truth > appearance > imitation.

 

Is the painter trying to imitate the thing itself the one that exists in the natural order of things? Or the work of the craftsmen? o Imitates o Trying to imitate the appearance – ‘what is the object of painting? Does it aim to imitate what is, as it is? Or imitate what appears, as it appears? Is it imitation of appearance, or of truth?’ (598b). Imitates appearance and not truth – the appearance differs due to perspective but the nature of the object does not change based on perspective. Only grasps a little bit of each thing it tries to imitate – only an image of it. Imitator ‘may know nothing of any of these skills, and yet, if he is a good painter, from a distance his picture of a carpenter can fool children and people with no judgement, because it looks like a real carpenter’ (598c). An individual who says they know someone who is able to have full (practical) knowledge of all crafts is themselves unable to distinguish knowledge from ignorance or imitation. Moves onto Homer. There is an assumption that tragedians know about all the arts and about everything human. The good poet is he is to do a good job of creating the things they create, must necessarily create them with knowledge – ‘good job’ could be equated to an accurate portrayal. They are creating appearances and not realities. Assuming someone was able to create both the imitation and its image would they have pride in the production of the image? If they really know about the things he imitates they’d be keener on actual real action than on imitation; more interested in having poetry written in their honour than in writing poetry in honour of others. Entitled to ask about the greatest things Homer talks about, which, if they are not two removes from the truth must have a proven benefit to a society, and has made people better or worse in both the private and public spheres. o

 

       

 

If Homer really had been able to educate men and make them better, due to his knowledge of these things, and not merely the ability to imitate them. All artists, starting with Homer are imitators of images of goodness and the other things they create without having a grasp of the truth. o The painter will create what looks like a shoemaker, though they themselves do not know how to

o o  

or emotion. The creator of images, the imitator, has no knowledge of what is, but only what appears to be. Fundamental claim. Uses the example of a painter painting a reins and bridle; o A blacksmith/leather worker makes them. o The painter does not know exactly what they should be like. o o

...