Chuck

Hello -

Moderators, this may be better in the Misc. forum, eventhough it is a philosophy question.

An artist friend of mine is preparing a research project "examining the role of sequential elements in paintings in engaging the viewer." (his words)

In order to develop a strong grasp of theory, he is looking for works about the philosophy of art, primarily the relationship between art and viewer. Does anyone have any suggestions?

He asked me this and I replied that it was far out of my depth, but not to fear, because I knew where there are lots of very well-read and hard thinking philosophers.

Thanks in advance,

Chuck

jpbrooks

Ha! Well, a professional philosopher, I'm certainly not!
I believe there is a book called Philosophy Looks At The Arts: Contemporary Readings In Aesthetics, that is on my list of books to purchase. Since I have not seen the book yet, I can't give you my evaluation of it.
I'm interested in this subject myself, but I haven't even been able to come up with an adequate definition of "art" that can withstand criticism. My best guess, at this point, would be that "art" is determined to be such ultimately by the artist himself or herself, even if it is interpreted in the "eye" of the viewer. I say this because if "art" were to be ultimately determined to be such by the viewer alone, it would be impossible to "pin down" a definition for it since it would be relative to anyone's subjective opinion.

That's about as far as my analysis of this subject area has gone up to this point without more books. Perhaps someone else can provide a better assessment than I can on this issue.

I have to run.

philechat

I define "art" as "object created by humans that has value beyond its function". That is, things that are made by human which is not only for the sake of performing a specific action. There is always a certain degree of "uselessness" in art, a degree by which people add symbolic meaning in their mind through association with the things created.

That is as close as I can get, however. I would say there are degrees of "artfulness" which could be assigned of artworks, from adding color to a pair of scissors (where only the color participates in art) to an orchestral performance (a purely artistic event). In the latter case people spend almost all of their attention in interpreting the event, which is nearly absent in the former.

And then there is also the problem of value assignment, the ways to judge "superior" and "inferior" art (where the function of taste/interpretation comes in). I would post them later once I have some ideas.

Keith Russell

phile:

One problem with your definition is, in what way is a symphony, an 'object'?

Keith.

philechat

Hi Keith:

For "objects", I mean things that are perceivable by the senses. Pardon my imprecise definition. Or, to paraphrase, "art" are "things perceivable by the senses that are created by humans, which have value beyond the actions (or functions) they perform."

Note that I use the definition broadly, and this "art" would include speeches, music, and books, which might not be strictly defined as "one object" per se.

jpbrooks

Thanks for your additional comments, philechat.

But couldn't we say that a thing or activity (such as a performance) that has come to be identified as a "work of art", has acquired a new (aesthetic) "function"? That is, doesn't a thing or an activity that is considered "artistic" have the "function" of being a medium of the expression/communication of aesthetic value(s)?

Perhaps the problems of "value assignment" and "degree of 'artfulness'" are interrelated. The activities of both "value assignment" and determining the degree of "artfulness" of something each require one to have a (seemingly similar, if not the same) standard of value judgment. If the value standards are indeed the same, then the "superiority" or "inferiority" of a "work of art" would depend on how well or how poorly the "work" conforms to the "definition" (or the criteria that determine the "artfulness") of "art".

I'll be back later.

philechat

Thanks for the questions, jpbrooks. I would try to modify my definitions and theory as the discussion goes on, such that I will also gain more understanding as to the nature of "art".

I would say "art" are things that requires symbolic interpretations by the participants (creator or audience) in perceiving the objects. Again it would be a matter of degrees rather than an absolute "line" dividing art/non-art. The idea lies in the act of interpretation, of assigning meaning to the objects beyond what is directly perceivable by the senses, or directly related to the physical actions performed (such as the action of drawing or listening)

I will get back to you later in terms of details. I think there is a distinction between the degree of "artfulness" and the value assignment of art, though they are indeed interrelated in some sense. For example, we may want to rate the skill level of two performers in the same kind of concert (say, for example, two different violinists playing the same musical piece with the same orchestra). In this example the degree of "artfulness" would be similar, while the value we (as audiences) give to the two performers would be different.

Keith Russell

phile, my favourite def. of 'art':

A selected re-creation of reality, according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments.
--Ayn Rand.

I think the fact that Rand ties art to value-judgments expresses nicely the fact that art is a human creation, while also nicely avoiding the usual problems of 'decorative' art/design vs. 'fine' art, 'high' art vs. 'low', and 'commercial art' vs. 'fine'.

It also avoids the problem of objects vs. events...

Keith.

wordfailure

Hello Chuck Fristians,
There is not much philosophy of art out there, in my view because art, at least at its best, is really about something else, be it anxiety, angst, confusion, love, despair, joy, sorrow, science, philosophy, etc. Art about art is, to me, a bit self-absorbed and narcissistic. Duchamp can keep his urinals and snow shovels. To focus on art itself, rather than on that which art is concerning itself with may be a little like focusing on cameras, lenses, developers, and such in relation to photography rather than the subject of the work. But alas, that stuff is important, too.

If your friend is not familiar with John Dewey's 'Art As Experience', you may wish to show him this bit, which I consider an important observation. Maybe he can tell from this if it's the type of thing he is looking for. Sorry for such a long bit, but it doesn't seem to me that it should be clipped. It's from Chapter IX: The Common Substance of the Arts:


The undefined pervasive quality of an experience is that which binds together all the defined elements, the objects of which we are focally aware, making them a whole. The best evidence that such is the case is our constant sense of things as belonging or not belonging, of relevancy, a sense which is immediate. It cannot be a product of reflection, even though it requires reflection to find out whether some particular consideration is pertinent to what we are doing or thinking. For unless the sense were immediate, we should have no guide to our reflection. The sense of an extensive and underlying whole is the context of every experience and it is the essense of sanity. For the mad, the insane thing to us is that which is torn from the common context and which stands alone and isolated, as anything must which occurs in a world totally different from ours. Without an intermediate and undetermined setting, the material of any experience is incoherent.

A work of art elicits and accentuates this quality of being a whole and of belonging to the larger, all-inclusive, whole which is the universe in which we live. This fact, I think, is the explanation of that feeling of exquisite intelligibility and clarity we have in the presence of an object that is experienced with esthetic intensity. It explains also the religious feeling that accompanies intense esthetic perception. We are, as it were, introduced into a world beyond this world which is nevertheless the deeper reality of the world in which we live our ordinary experiences. We are carried out beyond ourselves to find ourselves. I can see no psychological ground for such properties of an experience save that, somehow, the work of art operates to deepen and to raise to great clarity that sense of an enveloping undefined whole that accompanies every normal experience. This whole is then felt as an expansion of ourselves. For only one frustrated in a particular object of desire upom which he had staked himself, like Macbeth, finds that life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Where egotism is not made the measure of reality and value, we are citizens of this vast world beyond ourselves, and any intense realization of its presence with and in us brings a peculiarly satisfying sense of unity in itself and with ourselves.

philechat

Ah Keith. Rand was assuming "an artist" in her definition of art, which in my opinion is circular and redundent. "Metaphysical value-judgment" is also unclear to me, unless what she meant is the "interpretation" of the human creator toward his/her experience.

There is also the problem of audience in the field of art, the audience who actively participate in the artwork using their experience and judgments. The problem is, the audience would treat the artwork with a different point of view from the creator, and one should never assume the creator's "purpose" to be the only purpose in a piece of artwork.