Chapter-6 Indian Aesthetics-2 Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

ART EXPERIENCE- M. HiriyannaCHAPTER 6: INDIAN AESTHETICS-IIThe Indian tradition acknowledges the intrinsic connection between aesthetics and philosophy. However, the study of aesthetics was carried out by Alamkarikas, not strictly philosophers, but literary critics. Indian philosophers do deal with ...

Description

ART EXPERIENCE -M. Hiriyanna CHAPTER 6: INDIAN AESTHETICS-II The Indian tradition acknowledges the intrinsic connection between aesthetics and philosophy. However, the study of aesthetics was carried out by Alamkarikas, not strictly philosophers, but literary critics. Indian philosophers do deal with questions of beauty in nature, but do not generally go as far as art. The reason is that according to them, this pursuit cannot help with the final goal of life (the prime concern of Indian philosophy). For some, it even distracts from it. Hiriyanna notes one advantage of this separation: it frees aesthetic theory from restraints certain metaphysics might impose. The postulation of Vyangyartha by Indian aestheticians is not recognised by any school of philosophy; in fact, it is opposed. This points to the independence of aesthetic investigation. A new theory of meaning has evolved herein. Where it is not necessary to evolve new theories, aestheticians choose from existing philosophic theories according to the needs of the case. This does not mean that aesthetic theory is a dull monolith; it is certainly diverse, but this diversity is based on purely artistic considerations, not metaphysical, and is thus more genuine in artistic terms. Secondly, he says the aim of art is not to discover some objective nature of reality; it does not pronounce any final opinion. Aesthetics is thus alogical, unlike, say, ethics. While connected with psychology, it bypasses logic or epistemology. It is a shortcut to the ultimate value of life, serving as the medium to access it. Thus, it is concerned less with facts than with values. Nature and Art Hiriyanna addresses the question of whether there is any need for art if beauty is to be found in nature. He quotes GE Moore from Principia Ethica, who says that other things being the same, the beauty found in nature surpasses that of the imaginary. Hiriyanna gives two views, one of the idealists- that nature as a whole is beautiful, but may not appear so when looked at in parts- which is how we ordinarily perceive it. As Vedantic thought says, when one transcends the narrow self and attains the highest truth, he will see the glory and ecstatic beauty of the Being everywhere. Until then, the closest to such experience is art. Further, even the parts of nature we find beautiful may cease to give us aesthetic delight as their external presentation or our attitudes may change. And a second view may be that although nature is beautiful, it is also associated with ugliness, and to eliminate the latter would be to eliminate the former. In this pessimistic view, art becomes the sole means of unadulterated joy or pleasure. It serves as an escape from the perplexities of ordinary existence. Here aesthetics transcends the differences between the two metaphysical schools. Art is in both a necessity, and a means of accessing the ideal, whether or not we look to the actual realisation of a utopian state rendering it superfluous. Art Experience The aim of art, clearly, is to attain the highest form of ideal experience that is either unachievable in this life, or only with perfect knowledge. This experience is an end in itself. There are two characteristics of such art experience-a) Unselfishness in the sense of the complete letting go of personal concerns and the private self. So, the art experience consists

in the detached contemplation of beauty; any personal aim will intrude upon and vitiate the experience. b) It yields a joy completely untouched by pain. This also signifies its transcendental nature; the aesthetic attitude is placed higher than the ordinary one characterised by mental tension. The Content of Art Art comprises form and content. In poetry, for instance, the content is the ideas and sentiments expresses, while its musical language is the form. Form varies a great deal and has to do with technicalities. Hiriyanna says its function is simply to serve the content, and if it is assigned greater significance, that work of art cannot be the best type. The general character of the content of art is that it must be drawn from real life, while judiciously idealised. This idealisation serves two purposes: being drawn from the artist’s imagination, it stimulates the viewer’s imagination as well, and not just his intellect. Secondly, the particulars of experience can be generalised and thus induce a detached attitude. The fictions of art are not, however, falsity. To mistake them for the real is to be attached to illusion and lose the aesthetic viewpoint. To dismiss them as unreal is to lose interest. Thus, things in art have a unique alogical character of being between reality and unreality. We entertain them without believing or disbelieving in them. Around the 9 century AD, there was another change in this theory. Meaning also came to be regarded as an external vesture. The true content was placed in emotion. It is not just the degree of emotion that comes with imagination, but the emotional character of the depicted situation. The experience this generates in the viewer is called rasa. Consequentially, the expressed meaning also became subservient to the emotional content. This introduced a relativistic view- form and content could not be beautiful in themselves. The merits of skill appeal to the intellect but not the soul. The earlier view putting weight on excellence of form and meaning was not entirely discarded, but works on it were granted inferior status. th

The Method of Art Emotions cannot be directly communicated. To speak of, say, fear, conveys the idea of the feeling, but does not fully communicate or induce it in the listener. For this, a well-selected and presented set of causes, consequences must be portrayed. This indirect method is called dhvani, as is the work of art characterised by it. This had always been considered important for the artist, but one among other tools at his disposal. Recognising rasa as the main aim raised it to the sole method. Beyond rasa, the method of dhvani has also been extended to alamkaras (the imaginative aspect). Here, too, the indirectly suggested is preferred over the directly expressed. Imagination and emotion being intimately connected, the difference between the two is not always clear. The understanding and criticism of art here becomes more personal and subjective. Dhvani can also be extended to that which is neither rasa nor alankara and is indefinitely designated vastu. Here it is a question more of rearranging conclusions than adding anything new. The implicit subject of good art, as mentioned above, can be divided into three: emotional (rasadhvani), imaginative situations (alamkaradhvani), or matter of fact representations (vastu-dhvani). The dhvani method as the key to ‘true’ art further supports the explanation of art as alogical. Given the same premises, conclusions vary person to person, time to time and context to

context. Earlier views such as those of Mahima Bhatta and Mukula Bhatta mistakenly tried to take a logical approach, not realising that dhvani lacks necessity, which is essential to logic. Art and Morality In both the above discussed views, the presence of evil in life is implicit. What bearing, then, does art have on the problem of evil? First Hiriyanna explains how the ethical attitude is oriented with some purpose while the artistic transcends all purpose, the aesthetic experience being an end in itself. Secondly, in the attitude of unselfishness needed for both there is a difference. The aesthetic attitude is evoked by external stimulus. On the other hand, morality motivated solely by fear of punishment or hope of reward is no morality at all; so, the unselfishness characterising the ethical springs spontaneously from within. The aesthetic experience is transient and cannot outlast the stimulus that evokes it. It may leave a lingering good influence but there is no sure guarantee that it will. Moreover, art produces a sense of detachment as it deals with the imaginary, while the sphere of morality is actual life. Some say art has nothing to do with morality and is ethically neutral. Hiriyanna disagrees with this view, saying that if so, it ceases to be a human value and its recognition of evil in life is rendered meaningless. Art is for its own sake, but also bears criticism of life’s values. Its association with religion saves it from being entirely divorced from morality. The link between art and morality is not direct; rather, art should indirectly influence character. This connection cannot be due to the method (Hiriyanna says that fables and parables that indirectly teach morals, for instance, are not art). Thus, it is through the characters and their outlooks, and the general theme and plot, that moral influence is exercised upon the viewer. The best examples are the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, unparalleled in their influence. In works where no characters appear, like lyric poetry, it is the artist’s outlook that counts. Hiriyanna concludes that art should not have a didactic moral aim, but a moral view. Additionally, woven into the plot structure one may find moral ideals represented by the hero’s conduct. Hiriyanna cites the example of Rama from Bhavabhuti’s Uttararamacarita. Ultimately, art must morally influence the spectator without his knowing he is being influenced in this way. This makes it necessary for artistic themes to deal with higher values; otherwise, it cannot exert moral influence and may even corrupt and degrade character....