The Relationship between Beauty and Art | Steve Herrmann - wagtailfarm.info
What is the relationship between beauty and art? Beauty mesmerizes us and we cannot live without it. Which tribe in the world lives without beauty? It is without. Something can be neither “beautiful” nor “ugly” and yet still be a work of art1. 8 As much as the relationship between normativity and aesthetic judgment is not. In support of our statement that there is an essential difference between our view of . Usually it is said that the content of art is the beautiful; but this restricts the.
That is precisely why the more perfectly a useless imitation bears external resemblance to the original, the more disgust it arouses.
Normativity and Beauty in Contemporary Arts
As regards portraits which are awfully like the originals, this must be understood as follows: A portrait that fails to convey the chief, the most expressive, features of a face is not a faithful portrait; and when, at the same time, the petty details of the face are distinctly shown, the portrait is rendered ugly, senseless, lifeless — how can it be anything but awful?
It is not even possible to make a faithful facsimile of an ordinary manuscript if the meaning of the letters that are being copied is not understood We must now supplement the definition of art presented above, and from the examination of the formal principle of art proceed to the definition of its content.
Usually it is said that the content of art is the beautiful; but this restricts the sphere of art too much. Even if we grant that the sublime and the comic are moments of. In painting, these subdivisions do not apply to pictures of domestic life in which there is not a single beautiful or ridiculous person, to pictures of old men or old women not distinguished for exceptional beauty of age, and so forth.
In music it is still more difficult to introduce the usual subdivisions; if we put marches, pathetic pieces, and so forth, under the heading of the sublime, if we put pieces that breathe the spirit of love or gaiety under the heading of the beautiful, and if we find numerous comic songs, there still remain an enormous number of works the content of which cannot be put under any of these headings without stretching a point.
What is Art? and/or What is Beauty?
Under what heading are we to put sad melodies — under the sublime, as suffering, or under the beautiful, as tender dreams? But of all the arts, the one that is most difficult to squeeze into the tight compartments of beauty and its moments, with respect to content, is poetry.
Its sphere is the whole realm of life and nature. Not all grief reaches the point of tragedy; not all joy is graceful or comical. That the content of poetry is not exhausted by the well-known three elements can easily be seen from the fact that poetical works no longer fit into the frame of the old subdivisions. That dramatic poetry depicts not only the tragic or the comic is proved by the fact that besides comedies and tragedies the drama also had to appear.
The epic, which belongs chiefly to the sublime, has been replaced by the novel, with its innumerable categories. For most lyrical poems today it is impossible to find among the old subdivisions any heading that would indicate the character of their content; hundreds of headings would not suffice, so three are certainly not enough to embrace them all we are speaking of the character of the content and not of the form, which must always be beautiful.
The simplest way to solve this riddle would be to say that the sphere of art is not limited only to beauty and its so-called moments, but embraces everything in reality m nature and in life that is of interest to man not as a scholar but as an ordinary human being; that which is of common interest in life — such is the content of art. It is scarcely necessary to adduce more detailed proof of the correctness of our conception of the content of art, since although another, narrower definition of content is usually offered in aesthetics, our view predominates in actual fact, i.
It constantly finds expression in literature and in life. If it is thought necessary to define the beautiful as the main or, to be more exact, the sole essential content of art, the real reason for this is that the distinction between beauty as the object of art and beauty of form, which is indeed an essential quality of every work of art, is only vaguely seen.
But this formal beauty, or unity of idea and image, of content and form, is not the special feature that distinguishes art from all other branches of human activity. In acting, a man always has an aim, which constitutes the essence of his action. The worth of the act itself is judged by the degree to which it conforms to the aim we wished to realize by it. This is a general law for handicraft, for industry, for scientific activity, etc. It also applies to works of art: When we say that art is the reproduction of nature and life, we are saying the same thing: A reproduction must as far as possible preserve the essence of the thing reproduced; therefore, a work of art must contain as little of the abstract as possible; everything in it must be, as far as possible, expressed concretely in living scenes and in individual images Confusion of beauty of form as an essential quality of a work of art, and beauty as one of the numerous objects of art, has been one of the causes of the sad abuses in art.
What is the most beautiful thing [prekrasnoye] in the world? In human life — beauty [krasota] and love; in nature — it is difficult to decide — there is so much beauty in it. Thus it is necessary, appropriately and inappropriately, to fill poetical works with descriptions of nature: Inappropriate dilation on the beauty of nature is not so harmful in a work of art; it can be skipped, for it is tacked on in an external way; but what is to be done with a love plot? It cannot be ignored, for it is the base to which everything else is tied with Gordian knots; without it everything loses coherence and meaning.
All poetry, and all life depicted in it, assumes a sort of sentimental, rosy hue; instead of seriously depicting human life a great many works of art represent an excessively youthful to refrain from using more exact epithets view of life, and the poet usually appears to be a very young lad whose stories are interesting only for people of the same moral or physiological age as himself.
Lastly, this degrades art in the eyes of people who have emerged from the blissful period of early youth. Art seems to be a pastime too sickly sentimental for adults and not without its dangers for young people. We certainly do not think that the poet ought to be prohibited from describing love; but aesthetics must demand that he describe love only when he really wants to do so Love, appropriately or inappropriately — this is the first harm inflicted on art by the idea that the content of art is beauty.
The second, closely connected with the first, is artificiality. In our times people laugh at Racine and Madame Deshoulieres, but it is doubtful whether modern art has left them far behind as regards simplicity, naturalness of the springs of action, and genuine naturalness of dialogue.
The division of dramatis personae into heroes and villains may to this day be applied to works of art in the pathetic category. How coherently, smoothly, and eloquently these people speak! Monologues and dialogues in modern novels are not much less stilted than the monologues in classical tragedies. Let us, however, return to the question of the essential purpose of art. The first and general purpose of all works of art, we have said, is to reproduce phenomena of real life that are of interest to man.
Sometimes a man lives in a dream — in that case the dream has for him to a certain degree and for a certain time the significance of something objective.Art Must Be Beautiful
Still more often a man lives in the world of his emotions. Images help humansto use their imaginations to reshape and build on their ideas. Theyalso help to pass on these ideas to future generations.
You mightconsider, for example, the very different ideas of human perfectiondepicted in the art of the Ancient Egyptians and the AncientGreeks.
When you'r Dancing you'r creating art, because when you move you'r trying to tell a story through you'r movement As you can tell many paintings and drawings are based on nature. What is the relationship between arts and humanities? The humanities are the study of different cultures through what they left behind.
This includes their art, literature etc. So, in the most basic sense, much of what we know of… ancient civilizations is based mainly on their art, in the forms of pottery, plays, fiction, paintings and even cave drawings. Thus art and the humanities have a direct relationship as one is dependent on the other. The relationship between art and nature?
To get this answer you must have a really good sense of art.
What is Art? and/or What is Beauty? | Issue | Philosophy Now
Art and nature are kind of like Family. I will return at length to this point. Before Duchamp, art was deeply tied to beauty. The canons of interpretation organized by philosophy to theoretically account for them appropriately referred to sensitivity and perception. In this sense, art has to do with the ways in which we perceive the world because beauty is perceived primarily through our sense organs.
Where there is beauty there is sensitivity, and where there is sensitivity there is judgment of taste — which, as Immanuel Kant states in the Critique of Judgment, has an inherently normative structure. Before returning to contemporary art to try to understand if indeed Duchamp has ousted any kind of aesthetic normativity from artistic production, I will briefly examine the reasons that, in the eighteenth century, have led to consider the aesthetic judgment related to pre-Duchamp art as intrinsically normative.
The universality of beauty 5The question we have to answer is the following. When we make a judgment of taste looking, say, at the Mona Lisa, what does that mean exactly? This statement contains a judgment of taste Mona Lisa is beautiful and an artistic judgment it is a masterpiece of Western art. In what follows I will show that: At the same time however, according to Kant, we expect that anyone who has seen or will see the Mona Lisa, can only find it beautiful and, therefore, can only express the exact same judgment.
It therefore seems that there is a tension between the idea that judgments of taste, i.
In other words, they seem to be both subjective individual and objective normative. So the judgment of taste claims to be normative, i. In these pages I will adopt a wide conception, so to speak, of normativity: I will claim that normativity corresponds to the awareness that something can be correct or incorrect, but also that certain judgments can be better than others.
As is well known to scholars, in recent years much attention has been devoted to the notion of normativity, and this is true both for general philosophy and for its specific areas, primarily ethics and epistemology.
What should we do? And what should we believe? What is, if there is one, the theoretical core of the metaphysical concept of normativity? How, finally, does normativity relate to the judgment?
This means that judgments of taste regarding properties like beauty or ugliness are universal, because they are formulated thanks to i dispositions that are universally present in the subjects, or because they capture ii certain objective properties of things.
In other words, the universality of the judgment of taste can be based both on the knowledge of the subject and on the presence or absence of certain properties of the things to which the judgment of taste refers.
In both cases, there is a component of necessity which is related to the formulation of the judgments of taste and which constitutes their normativity.
In one of his most important works, Aesthetica, Baumgarten famously defines aesthetics as a science of sensitive cognition.
It deals with analysing everything that is present to the senses: In this framework, the judgment is the representation of the perfection or imperfection of things, and beauty is perfection perceived through the senses rather than through the intellect 3.
He intends to develop a general science of sensitive cognition rather than a theory of the fine arts or the judgment of taste. Therefore Baumgarten divides the theory of knowledge into two parts: The first, logic, concerns intellectual knowledge; the second, aesthetics, concerns instead the science of sensitive cognition and the theory of the liberal arts. The goal of the new science is to achieve the perfection of sensitive knowledge as such, i. Beauty is not, or not only, a property of things, it is rather a property that belongs to the workings of our sensitive powers when they are organized for the best.
What kind of knowledge does Baumgarten have in mind? This is the reason why aesthetics, as such, is not ratio, that is, it is not an entirely and classically rational science, but rather what Baumgarten defines as analogon rationis or facultas cognoscitiva inferior.
As a form of knowledge, poetry also uses representations that can be more or less distinct, and yet it remains a form of knowledge consisting, for the most part, of sensitive ideas. On the contrary, scientific knowledge can be composed of sensitive ideas, but its standard organization requires the use of representations.
The concept of sensitive idea shows promise for our purposes, especially because Baumgarten seems to aspire to a new way of conceiving and organizing knowledge. In particular, from his point of view it is impossible to draw a definite distinction between knowledge derived from the senses and that which arises from the intellect: Representations, in turn, can grasp external reality in a more or less effective way. In particular, when he argues that beauty is nothing but the perfection of sensible cognition, he is saying that beauty does not belong only to the representation of things — to their formal composition, we could say — but also to the experience of sensory perception.
Painting representing the phantasmata of things is also similar to poetry. It is interesting to note that wherever you can gain knowledge, there must be some form of regularity and thus of normativity. Is beauty really, for what concerns epistemology, on the same level as good and truth? Kant believes that the tension between the freedom of the subject and universal normativity is possible.
In fact, the subject intimately participates in the formulation of the aesthetic judgment, being induced to respond emotionally to the aesthetic perception e.
However, within the judgment of taste there is not only the individual response to the aesthetic perception: However, it is certainly true that for Kant the place of normativity is beauty, wherever it is given to find it, be it in nature or in artistic production.
The arts — and, for Baumgarten, especially poetry — allow us to access this area of being, letting us access a less formalized dimension of reality that, as such, is marked by its own normativity. Before doing so, we can clarify the reasons for his preference for poetry: So he is particularly inclined to art forms that use words.
However, precisely because of this lesser subtlety, it captures and signifies an important sphere of reality: The visual arts using the narrative style work similarly to poetry: A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. In The Calling of St. Matthewthe perception of the formal properties of the painting is at least as important as that of the narrative. The narrative content is expressed in a more concise, but also more direct way than the narration of the same episode as it appears in the Gospel of Mark 5.
The scene is set in a place similar to a tavern: The characters somewhat look alike, so that critics are still unsure as to who of them is Matthew.
In front of the group, a man with his hand raised clearly addresses one of the diners, pointing at him.