What does Art Tell us About Society - Essay Example

Jeffery So 1243363 Sociology461 Prof. Westerman What does Art tell us about Society? Art as a concept has many definitions depending on the perspectives being used to define it. For classical philosophers of art like Kant and Tolstoy, art is a unique activity, clearly distinct from and standing above the concerns of other parts of society. They are thus concerned with form and content of art and believe there is a universal standard for judging art. Sociologists like Pierre Bourdieu on the other hand, care less about the form or content of art but rather, the social circumstances surrounding the production and consumption of art. As such, the work of art exists only by virtue of belief which knows and acknowledges it as work of art. Whatever the case, art being a product of society may tell us about many aspects of the society. We may learn through art the underlying structures of society or its progress from ancient to medieval to modern period. For example, ancient societies experienced art by participation in it while Western societies viewed art in galleries and theatres and their style was more sophisticated due to use of both objectivity and technical skills (Mannheim 87-89). Just by looking at a piece of art, we may also learn about how different societies viewed the world. For example, the ancient Greeks believed in the existence of gods who controlled various aspects of their lives such as agriculture, war, love and the king of gods. These gods were sculptured with different features depicting their authority and how the world should be and placed in Olympia temple. Epic poems such as odyssey also depict the world view of the ancient Greeks. Art also reveals aspects of the society that need to be changed. For example, modern mass art produced by the culture industry depicts a capitalist society which is ruled by consumerism and pursuit of profit and a working class which is subdued and which in turn is fighting to change the status quo. In this essay I will argue that art tells us that there is a single underlying and unified worldview shared by most people in the society which Mannheim calls Weltanschauung (91) and that art tell us things about society in a way that shows the need for change. Society is divided into different layers and groupings based on economic, religious, political and other factors. For example, based on the economic status people are divided into various classes such as the low, middle and upper class or in the capitalist mode of production two classes exists; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Bourdieu argues that each class has its way of behaving dictated by values, norms and beliefs of such a group making it difficult for other groups to fit in and that the working class aesthetic is a dominated aesthetic (Distinction p. 41). They have their style of doing things such as dressing, leisure time, eating and individualistic behaviour. In other words, people of the same social class share similar experiences. According to Mannheim, these are experiential contextures and are defined as “general background and structure of daily experiences, and the regularities that contextualise individual experiences” (91). These experiential contextures gives rise to a Weltanschauung or world view which refers to “totality of structurally linked set of experiential contextures which makes up common footing upon which multiplicity of individuals together learn from life and enter into it” (Mannheim 91). This worldview represents a system of mutually coherent experiences and can be grasped by means of its art, religion, mores, education, politics, and economic structure. Depending on the direction from which we approach this Weltanschauung we can learn various aspects of the society. For example, in artistic terms we can learn the culture of various societies. Danto explains how ancient and modern societies experienced art. Ancient societies composed pieces of work to be performed and celebrated in cultural events while Western societies produced pieces to be exhibited in galleries and theatres (Danto 148-149). Bourdieu on the other hand argues that “art is not created in a vacuum but in a smaller field within broader social hierarchies of power and class” (p. 41). Since aesthetic attitudes have a social origin, a work of art exists only by virtue of belief which knows and acknowledges it as work of art. This means a piece of work is given meaning by the group or society experiencing it hence represents their world view. This explains why different aesthetic attitudes are apparent in institutions such as galleries, theatres and opera houses. These different ways of experiencing art also reveal the worldview held by the ancient and western societies. For ancient societies, art was a way of life and inherent in the cultural practices thus reflecting the views and beliefs of those who participated in it while western societies viewed art as something to be enjoyed for its aesthetic beauty reflecting the consumerism behaviour of bourgeoisie society (Geertz 106-107). Art can tell us about how an era looked at the world by analysing the styles used by different cultures or societies. Style in this case is the “aesthetic and sociological categories which may be formal or compositional components common in works of the same tendency” (Mannheim 86). Mannheim believed there was a core unifying principle behind style and also viewed style as representing a specific worldview. He believed that common experiences of the world produced unified response to it and this is reflected in styles of the art a society creates. This unified style was referred as Kunstwollen by Panofsky and was adopted by Mannheim to mean the basic pre-understandings of reality as a whole. He argued that by identifying a Kunstwollen of particular epoch’s art, we could understand how that society viewed reality as a whole. Style includes how material is ordered, how colour is used, lines, shapes and what the art work highlights (Wolfflin 6). It is the technique used by the artists and for Mannheim it reveals pre-understandings of the world. For example, in the modern capitalist world, people are concerned about ways of maximizing profit. This is reflected in the way artists or the culture industry has resorted to producing mass art with same artistic style by use of similar techniques and machines. Therefore, even if the content of the work of art is different, the style is the same; same prose and language. Style was thus very crucial in art work as it indicated different meanings for different groups. We do not expect Western art to have the same style as ancient art since these two represent different epochs in society. Western art is more sophisticated in terms of use of technique and proportions whereas primitive societies new nothing about technical aspects of art. According to Mannheim, “style designates the predominantly social element in the art object and in the experiential contexture belonging to it” (88). For him, art is an embodiment of meaning having been created by an artist. Even though the artist has his/her way of seeing the world, he must create a piece of work that reflects the society’s view of the world and put his own view aside since he is just part of the whole. It is the society that gives meaning to all objects so constructed. This is supported by Tolstoy who emphasized the role of emotions by an artist as a means of consciously communicating the feelings he/she experienced to others by external signs such as movements, lines, colours, and sounds (Tolstoy 37-40). In a nutshell, art tells us how different societies looked at the world. This is evident in their artistic styles which are more or less the reflection of the common experiences by people of a certain society or culture or group. For example, there was a great difference between Egyptian art, Greek art and renaissance art based on the way they either utilized objective proportions or technical proportions or both. In addition to telling us about different worldviews, art also tell us things about society in a way that shows the need for change. For example, the ancient Greeks view of the world was that it was controlled by the gods and this passed down to generations through myths. The most popular of these are Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and Virgil’s Aeneid which are epic poems narrating the history of Greeks and their gods. However, sociologists such as Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956), Theodore Adorno (1903-1969), Georg Lukacs (1885-1971) and Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) will show that in modern society founded on capitalism and its culture of consumerism rarely tells us anything more about the worldview of a society than what is observed in art institutions. The modern period is marked by institutionalisation of the autonomy of art. Art tells us about the culture of a society. Clifford Geertz’s theory of art forms and their cultural context particularly considers art as cultural system involving an emotional and intellectual aesthetic response based on ones feelings (96). When people visit galleries and theatres, they observe and experience arts of work which more or less reflects on their cultural activities hence primitive and modern art cannot be placed together. Moreover, primitive societies experience aesthetic beauty through participation in ritual activities while modern societies visit galleries to experience art. This means that autonomy of art has been institutionalised. Lukacs argues that certain aesthetic forms and styles are more suited to depicting ‘modernity’ than others (59). For example, the two popular art works produced by Homer; Iliad and Odyssey are epic poems whose value was only in the ancient Greek times as today, they have been undertaken by the novel. The epic poems were used to narrate the history of Greeks and their culture and as such, the individuals or heroes depicted in the poems are less important; the story is not about individuals but the collective society to which these heroes belong. As society changes so do art work change to reflect the changing social circumstances. The modern society has become more fragmented and individualised hence modern art should be able to reflect this change thus the emergence of the novel. In contrast to the epic poems, the novel does not narrate about the society but about the individual characters hence individual is alienated from society (59). The epic also do not pay attention to form or architectural construction as it begins in the middle and does not finish at the end. The novel on the other hand, has a form rooted in social structure and reflects a heterogonous society and content is interiorised (Lukacs 66). The experience of epic poems could be said to be universal for the Greeks as it taught same morals, values and beliefs but it could not be said the same of the novel as it is individualised. Each person has own taste thus chooses whatever genre he or she wants. Lukacs argues that the novel appears as something in the process of becoming hence is the most hazardous genre and purely individualistic thus “raises individual to intellectual heights of one who must create entire world through experience and maintain world in equilibrium” (83). In this case, modernity breaks the old sources of meaning and since the community is also divided, the novel is meaningless. In this sense, art works such as novels, songs and dances rarely tell the history of the society although according to Benjamin they can reveal shocking experiences or background memories of things we have encountered before in childhood (159). Though art may represent aspects of society such as their culture and economic activities through songs, dance, and carvings, Brecht argues that the modern society requires unique forms of art to represent it (3-4). For example, in galleries various items are exhibited that represent what the society does and since it is the society that gives meaning to objects by use of symbols and signs, they are the only ones who can appreciate this art and not other societies whose meaning is different (Geertz, 106-107). Theatre and galleries in this sense are entertainment spots where people spend their leisure time. However, Brecht disputes this and argues that entertainment was only possible during ancient times such as for ancient Greeks whose theatre was a ritual function and a civic celebration. Nowadays, people go to theatres to escape the stresses of work but the manner in which they behave in such theatres and galleries demands change. Individuals rather than participate and experience art go to galleries to be passive spectators and sit in a certain way hence the institutional settings have become autonomous rather that the art itself. In galleries and theatres, the emotions and feelings of individuals are dictated by the industry or film makers. Standards are already set by the industry of how long the story or film will be and the prose itself. Spectators are conditioned to aesthetic attitude such that even before the film begins, spectators already know how it is going to end (Adorno & Horkheimer 125).This is due to the mass entertainment culture brought about by capitalism. Art is no longer “purposive without purpose’ as envisaged by Kant. Beautiful art for Kant is the formally-beautiful presentation of things that in nature would be otherwise ugly such as diseases (Kant 14). It has become a commercial activity hence directed towards earning revenue rather than being appreciated as art for art’s sake. Adorno & Horkheimer thus argue that enlightenment has been sacrificed under its own logic hence is unable to fulfil its promise of happiness (140). Instead, it represses spectators’ feelings and cheats customers what it promises; that is they never get to experience the real thing. Adorno and Horkheimer refute the disinterested stance taken by Kant regarding art and argue that the cultural industry is not disinterested but after profit maximisation. The industry thus needs to change and treat art not as any other commodity in the market but as distinct. The capitalist mode of production which operates under the logic of profit maximisation is the foundation of all social, religious, educational and political organisations in the society. It is based on division of labour and specialisation and technological innovations leading to efficiency. This is the logic under which contemporary society produces mass art in large corporations thereby limitation individual expression (Adorno & Horkheimer 120-123). It involves producing standardised work of art hence same procedure if followed and the form and content of the art work are dictated by external rationalising forces that deprive it its meaning. Since it has same basic story, it is incapable of conveying information about the history of a society or culture. The industry is dominated by a single style thus high art in this case represents a pure style which differentiates itself from others. In the culture industry, culture and entertainment are fused together hence it is deprived of culture and intellectualisation of amusement as only the copy appears (143). Man too becomes interchangeable; a copy as men are not supposed to think but enjoy hence are helpless. If philosophers value art as distinct, in the capitalist mode of production no object has inherent value only arises if the object can be exchanged. This is to say, art has no inherent value unless it becomes a commodity to be exchanged in the market and its use value is the social ratings. Contemporary theatres treat society as unchangeable or as a natural world. Brecht offers various techniques for correcting this mistake and making the actors and spectators more active in the theatres and galleries and to view the society as changeable. This technique he calls alienation effect and involves isolating individual elements for reflection (Brecht 4).It also involves changing society structures as theatre represents the structure of society as incapable of being influenced by society. Contrary to Tolstoy who thinks those artists’ genuine emotions about the piece of work they are relaying matters and should be present in order to instil the same feelings in audience (37), Brecht is against total immersion in the play to allow intellectual reflection. Tolstoy laid down three conditions for a good piece of work: particularity of feeling, clarity and sincerity (p. 121). The more sincere the artist is in his/her feelings, the better the art is as an art, regardless of its content. In this case, the emotions of the character should be able to affect the audience thus if the story is sad, the audience should be able to feel sad too thus connect with the character. This is what Brecht is against as for him; the character should dissociate himself from the play to allow the audience to develop own emotions and relate the play to his own experience in the present time. The alienation technique involves ensuring characters on stage are moved by social impulses which differ according to period and having historical conditions created and maintained by men rather than being imagined. This according to Brecht will leave spectators intellect free and highly mobile (4) instead of waiting for reason to develop naturally from mental faculties as alleged by Kant. Whilst Kant believes that an art activity should stir thinking or mental faculties to reflection (183), Brecht is of the view that the feelings, insights and impulses of characters are forced hence do not stir any thinking. For thinking to develop naturally, Brecht advices use of masking devices to free socially-conditioned phenomena from stamp of familiarity hence protect characters from spectator’s grasp. Conclusion Art tells us about an underlying worldview common to a society and also things in society in a way that encourages social change. It is acted out in a society that embraces mass production and consumerism hence the cultural industry has been transformed into mass art and mass production which is standardised. Contrary to ancient history where art depicted a society’s history and culture, modern art has nothing to teach except what is learnt in the setting. In theatres and galleries spectators have been reduced to passive observers who are not required to think but just to enjoy after a hard day’s work. Art is no longer autonomous, rational nor purposive without a purpose or a communication of general feeling. All what the characters do is forced on them by the industry as it produces standardised goods for mass sale to maximise profit. However, this situation exposes what the society is going through as art work is representation of the underlying society and this encourages the need for change. Avant-Garde sociologists suggest a revolution in aesthetics as the solution through a technique called alienation to allow intellectual reflection and freedom. Works Cited Adorno Theodore W. And Horkheimer Max. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Verso. Benjamin Walter. Illuminations: On Some Motifs on Baudelaire. Bourdieu Pierre. Distinction Brecht and Burger. The Avant-Garde (II). Brecht Bertolt. A short Organum for the Theatre: Theory of Theatrical Aliention Using Aesthetic Framework, 1948. Clifford Geertz, “Art as a Cultural System,” Local Knowledge. Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology 2.1 (1983): 94-120 Danto Arthur. Defective Affinities: Primitiveness in the 20th Century Art. Kant Immanuel. Critique of the Power of Judgment.Trans. P. Guyer and Eric Matthews.Cambridge University press. Lukacs Georg. The Theory of the Novel. London: Merlin Press Mannheim, Karl. Structures of Thinking. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Tolstoy Leo. What is Art? Wolfflin Heinrich. Principles of Art History: The Problem of the Development of Style in Later Art. Dover Publications, Inc. Read More