Aesthetic Philosophers - Essay Example

?Aesthetics is the philosophical study of art, both in terms of what defines the specific nature of an art object and what is necessary for some artifact to be called “art”. These are intuitively important questions for those who have an appreciation of art; for instance, if one goes to a museum and sees an object that was placed next to a valuable exhibit by chance, what objective characteristics separate that object placed there by chance from the object placed for the enjoyment of the museum goers. A separate but related question is that of beauty: namely, the characteristics that make an art object “beautiful” in the sense that it is aesthetically pleasing, and the characteristics that separate an art object from objects used specifically for the purpose of decorations. All of these very fascinating questions are best answered by looking at what society considers “significant” or “beautiful”. From these examples, one might be able to find common characteristics between them and maybe empirically approach a theory of the good in art. This all presupposes, however, that there are objective characteristics that one can isolate and call “art” or “beauty”. It very well may be that all art and all beauty are subjective in the sense that they are nothing separate from the object placed next to the art exhibit by chance. Regardless, assuming there is some objective nature to art and beauty, there are theories of what it means for an object to be considered art. However, none of these theories seems to be sufficient to explain exactly what separates the art exhibit from the other object. An art object is an aesthetic object is designed specifically for aesthetic appeal. The question is why do human beings take the time and resources to create the aesthetically appealing art object. One way to answer this is by saying that art fulfils a basic human necessity: an instinct that requires rhythm, balance, harmony, melody, and other things from our natural existence. As an illustration of this view, the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once wrote that art is a representation of reality. Because nature is full of change, decay, and growth, nothing remains completely constant. However, art has the ability to stand the test of time, and communicate universal themes of human life long after the artist and the society in which it was created has fallen away. Aristotle wrote, “Imitation, then, is one instinct of our nature. Next, there is the instinct for 'harmony' and rhythm, meters being manifestly sections of rhythm. Persons, therefore, starting with this natural gift developed by degrees their special aptitudes, till their rude improvisations gave birth to Poetry” (Aristotle). For instance, art made long ago by ancient peoples in the Cave of Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc, representations of rhinoceroses and other objects significant to the lives of the people who lived at that time. Although the creators of the art may have had a certain social intention in creating the representations, this psychological intuition about the purpose of art suggests that they had a basic human instinct in seeking rhythm and harmony in nature. In the works of Vermeer in particular, we see representations of daily life throughout his galleries. However, there are obvious perfections in the way that Vermeer presented these time capsules of life in 17th century Holland. For instance, Vermeer produced transparent colors by applying paint in loosely granular layers. This technique, among many, set Vermeer apart from his contemporaries because it made his artworks a perfect aesthetic representation. Because people seek art for its harmony and rhythm, they expect it to be more perfect than nature itself, according to this theory of the purpose of art. Representation as the goal of art is a provocative theory. Another notion of art’s purpose comes from other well-known aesthetic philosophers who thought of art more as an expression of imagination than as an unconscious instinct or desire. Under this different conception, art gives people the tool for expressing their imaginative cognitions in sometimes unstructured ways, which are not bound to a series of rules governing spoken or written language. Unlike language, art prepares a range of forms, symbols and ideas with meanings that are malleable according to the artist’s intentions and purposes in creating the specific art object. The 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote, “Jupiter's eagle is not, like logical (aesthetic) attributes of an object, the concept of the sublimity and majesty of creation, but rather something else—something that gives the imagination an incentive to spread its flight over a whole host of kindred representations that provoke more thought than admits of expression in a concept determined by words” (Kant). In other words, examples of art give the artist’s imagination a reason to exist. The artist’s imagination has the power to create objects that extend far beyond the object that he is merely representing. In this way, this theory of the purpose of art shines past the theory that artistic works simply aim at achieving a good representation of nature; rather, artistic works seek to push the limits of what is possible in terms of imagining reality. The French sculptor Auguste Rodin emerged in a time when traditional ways of sculpting were deeply ingrained into the practice. Although he helped bring about an age of modern sculpture, he accepted the traditions of the past and old ways of doing his work. Nevertheless, his new techniques pushed the limits of contemporary imagination for the time in which he created his art. His creations were complex and possessed a turbulent surface that was surely difficult to produce. In this way, it seems that Rodin exemplified the theory of art that proposes art is the unique outlet for imagination. Additionally, the Italian sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini of the 17th century was praised for his ability to push the imaginative limits of his practice. He is known primarily today for integrating sculpture, architecture, paintings, plays, and other written forms into a coherent whole. This “unity of the visual arts” means that our imaginations ought not to be confined to one specific method of artistic creation, but that it ought to extend to other aspects of the creative, or imaginative, process (Lavin). The extent to which these two theories about the purpose and nature of art can both be correct at the same time is limited, primarily because both theories propose basic, unconscious sources of motivation for artistic creation. The Aristotle-inspired notion of art, as a product of an instinctual drive for finding rhythm and harmony in nature, posits that unspoken desire is the source of art. The Kant-inspired notion of art, as a product of the imagination’s unquenchable drive for expression in reality, posits that imagination is the source of art. Perhaps one might say that one’s imagination is the instinctual device that searches for rhythm and harmony in nature. But imagination is not strictly limited to the unconscious. For instance, artists may spend years devoting thought to the right colors and canvas to be used on their latest idea. Perhaps, however, that the purpose of art itself is not meant to be considered unconscious. That is, some artists may very well create art for very explicit purposes, such as to be sold as decorative pieces or as a means of healing their own soul. There is no way to abstract a common theme from every possible purpose for artistic creation. In fact, it seems that artistic creation is a very personal process, with a manifold of unconscious and conscious meanings. Analyzing why a specific piece of art was creating requires not a substantial inquiry into human nature, but a meaningful examination of the individual artist’s psychology. Aesthetic philosophers are prone to proposing theories of the nature, and purpose, of art and beauty. However, this seems to assume that there are objective characteristics out there waiting to be analyzed and isolated for individual study. It might be the case that artistic creation is the product of a subjective process not driven by an instinct, a desire, or an imagination. In fact, any number of forces affecting the individual psyche could drive it. A more productive study of the purpose of art is to contextualize it with the life of the artist and the society in which it was appreciated or unappreciated. Works Cited Aristotle. The Poetics. 2009. 2010 . Cherkas. Bernini's sculptures. 2007. 2010 . Clottes, Jean. The Cave of Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc. 2008. 2010 . Escondido. The Vermeer Art Gallery. 2008. 2010 . Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Aesthetic Judgement. Berlin, 1790. Lavin, Irving. Bernini and the Unity of the Visual Arts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. Leone, Stephanie. The Sculpture of Auguste Rodin. 2005. 2010 . Read More