SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 6
Download to read offline
19: Is Aesthetics itself beautiful?        177

                    [Published in Rolando M. Gripaldo, ed. 2004. Philosophical landscape.
                    Manila: Philippine National Philosophical Research Society]


                           IS AESTHETICS ITSELF BEAUTIFUL?1
                                                  Rolando M. Gripaldo

                           Aesthetics deals with theories of beauty. As the study of the beautiful, it tries to
                    explain the nature of the creative impulse. This study is distinct and apart from the appraisal
                    of the work of art which, in the contemporary scene, is called the philosophy of art. In
                    practice, however, many philosophers do not separate the two. They discuss the functions
                    of both the creator and the critic as one since for the artist or creator to judge whether his/her
                    work is beautiful or not, s/he has to assume the function of the critic. The artist cannot
                    appreciate his/her work unless s/he distances himself/herself from it by assuming the position
                    of the audience or critic and by viewing his/her work objectively. For purposes of this paper,
                    aesthetics is viewed to include the philosophy of art.
                           There are three major types of works of art: (a) visual arts such as painting, sculpture,
                    photography, drawing, architecture, interior design, landscaping, mosaic, computer design
                    printing, etc.; (b) performing arts which include music, dance, theater, cinema; and (c) literary
                    arts such as drama or play, novel, poem, short story, essay (Ortiz et al.1976: 1-31).
                           Aesthetic theories take the form of literary arts, that is to say, they are written as
                    essays. To analyze whether aesthetics is itself beautiful, we have to rephrase our title: “Are
                    aesthetic theories, as essays, themselves beautiful?” I will attempt to answer this question in
                    the affirmative.
                           An aesthetic theory as a literary art has both form and content. Its form is the essay,
                    but we are more concerned with the nature of its content, that is, whether as a theory of
                    beauty, it is itself beautiful.

                    LEXICAL MEANING OF BEAUTY

                           There is only one lexical meaning of beauty that is relevant to aesthetics, viz, that
                    which delights the perceiver or aesthete. This meaning is found in the dictionary and is
                    uniform or the same to all who use the word “beautiful.” However, the standard of beauty for
                    each individual may differ or, socially speaking, may be culture bound. (A Ugandan tribe,
                    e.g., considers a fat woman beautiful.) One person may consider one work of art as beautiful
                    or aesthetically satisfying while another will judge it weird or ugly. In other words, perceivers
                    may disagree as to the criteria or standards of beauty, but they agree as to the meaning of
                    beauty since that meaning is based on usage.
                           We appreciate the thing we call beautiful, or to call a thing beautiful is to appreciate it
                    in the sense that it delights us, it satisfies our cravings for beauty, it fascinates us. It lets us
                    play with our imagination.
                           There are various theories on the creative impulse, on where beauty resides, and on the
                    criteria of appreciating what is beautiful.
                           When I was young, I grew up in a rustic place. Every morning I saw the open landscape,
                    the dewy meadows with carabaos and horses roaming around, and birds flying against the
                    background of an azure sky. It was a sight to behold. It delighted and fascinated me, and I
                    found it beautiful. In late afternoons, I saw the sun setting—a red, orange disc moving
                    slowly down the horizon. Again, I was delighted and fascinated by it. To me, it was beautiful.
                           Each one of us has a bias. My bias when I was young was that beauty exists out there
                    objectively, or independently of my perceiving mind—that is, that beauty resides (is found)
                    in nature. When I grew up and was introduced to artistic works—mostly paintings—I noticed




aesthetics_beautiful.pmd              177                                              1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
178              Rolando M. Gripaldo



             that the artist copies or imitates nature such that it seems to me, commonsensically speaking,
             that art imitates nature or life. The paintings were like photographs of landscapes or animal.
             Plato (Titus 1968: 376) supports this theory when he says that the artist imitates what is
             pleasant. Aristotle likewise argues that painting arises from the desire to make likenesses of
             men and women, or that comedy mimics life. According to Titus (1968: 375):

                         Aristotle…finds in imitation a natural tendency that he regards, along with
                      the pleasure that comes from recognition of the object or scene portrayed, as the
                      explanation of art. Painting grows out of the desire to make likenesses of people
                      and things. The theater imitates men in action: comedy mimics people, and
                      tragedy is an imitation of some of the events of real life.

             TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF ART

                   This traditional interpretation that art as an imitation of life or nature has been challenged.
             And this is where the delight of aesthetics, for me, begins. Oscar Wilde (1960: 20-22) contends
             that nature or life can also imitate art. No one appreciated the fogs of London before because
             they were associated with colds and sickness, not until the impressionists started painting
             them. When the people saw the paintings, they were fascinated by the fogs and found them
             beautiful. Then every time London had the fogs, the people welcomed them, and found
             fogginess a beautiful scenery—a sight to behold. “The artist,” as it were, “provides a kind of
             education of the imagination and the senses, so that we perceive in nature what art has
             prepared us to see” (Rader 1960: 5).

             APPRECIATING ART

                    It appears not only commonsensical but also rational to conceive that art imitates nature.
             But even this rationality for the artist to imitate nature has likewise been challenged. According
             to Henri Bergson (1960: 80-87), it is not reason or the intellect that enables the artist to imitate
             nature. Rather, beauty is intuited from an objective reality and depicted by the artist as he
             “sees” it. He does not actually imitate nature. The intellect, for Bergson, is the misfortune of
             man since it reconstructs reality. Reality is something that subsists. Time, for example, is the
             interpenetration of the past, present, and future. A part of the past and of the future partakes
             of the present. We cannot really subdivide reality, but the intellect does just that. The
             intellect constructs its own reality by subdividing time in terms of hours, minutes, and seconds,
             and by portraying what is typical. We need the intellect, of course, for our survival and it lets
             us enjoy the fruits of science and technology, but for a price: we cease to perceive reality
             correctly as individuality since the intellect has diminished our intuitive capacity. The artists
             have plenty of intuitions. They perceive the individual rather than the type. They transform
             it into a work of art. They intuit the individual (or the unique) rather than the typical as
             something beautiful. Art is not therefore imitation but intuition.
                    A milder view can be reconstructed from the views of G. E. Moore and Plato. It is an
             attempt to reconcile art as imitation and art as intuition. G. E. Moore (Hudson 1970: 66-71) is
             a moral intuitionist who says about “good” that whenever we call a thing or action “good,”
             this word “good” refers to a unique object which we intuit. By the same reasoning, we may
             argue that “ beauty” refers to a unique object which the artist intuits when he perceives
             something beautiful, and beauty exists objectively—perhaps as a perfect form elsewhere as
             in Plato’s World of Forms or simply as a logical possibility (see Ceniza 2001 and Gripaldo 2004:
             135-69). In this view, the artist imitates what s/he intuits in objective reality.
                    Sigmund Freud (1960: 127-40) also challenges reason as the basis of the creative impulse.
             He maintains that art is wish fulfillment. The conscious ego or intellect is only the tip of the
             iceberg, which is largely dominated by the unconscious id. Artists like everyone else do have




aesthetics_beautiful.pmd             178                                            1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
19: Is Aesthetics itself beautiful?        179



                     frustrations, and while many of us non-artists fulfill our frustrated desires in some other way
                     as in dreaming or the like, the artist fulfills his/her frustrated wishes in his/her works of art. In
                     extraordinary cases, some people who are not by nature artists are able to write good poetry
                     because of frustrated desires. A suitor, for example, who is jilted by his lover may sit down—
                     in desperation and frustration—and starts to write something which turns out to be an
                     excellent piece of poetry.
                            In appreciating the work of art, the participation of the audience is quite important.
                     Vernon Lee (1960: 370-74) holds that to appreciate a work of art as beautiful is to empathize
                     with it. This is the commonsensical view. Lee says that when one claps his hands, stumps
                     his foot on a musical march, or shed tears on a melodramatic scene, then he is empathizing.
                     To empathize is to show the sentimental or human aspect of the audience. This was my bias
                     when I was young.
                            Josè Ortega y Gasset (1960: 411-19) believes that true art is dehumanized art. The
                     tendency of new artists is to get rid of sentimentalism, escape from the human element, or to
                     get out of the crippling humanizing situation. Wilhelm Worringer (1960: 382-91) also contends
                     that the tendency to abstraction is the “polar opposite of the need of empathy.” The artist,
                     according to Worringer, has the psychological fear of space. Everything is spatially transitory
                     or impermanent. The artist somehow wants to escape from impermanence and tries to
                     encapsulate the perfect form of beauty—in terms of geometrical forms—which are permanent
                     and absolutely immutable. As Worringer says (1960: 387):

                                [The artist’s] strongest impulse was, as it were, to tear the external object out
                            of the context of nature, out of the endless interplay of existence, to purify it of
                            all dependence on life, all arbitrariness, to make it necessary and stable, to make
                            it approximate to its absolute value.

                            Allied to art as empathy is art as communication. Leo Tolstoy (1960: 62-71) thinks that
                     for an artist to succeed in his/her work, s/he must be understood by the audience. In this
                     regard art is a two-way communication. There must be a feedback mechanism whereby the
                     artist will know if the audience understands his/her message; otherwise, s/he is a failure or
                     his/her works are not aesthetically fulfilling.
                            A contrary view to this is that of Benedetto Croce (1960: 88-104). He contends that
                     what is important is simply the fact that the artist is able to express himself. Art as expression
                     is therefore audience-free. Whether or not the present audience understands the artist does
                     not matter. For all we know, the present generation will not understand the artistic work, but
                     the future generation will. Impressionism was rejected during its time but is now accepted.
                     Many rejected the works of Van Gogh and Picasso during their time but they now command
                     a high price in auction sales. As one may express himself to a woman: “I love you but what
                     concern is that of yours?”2

                     ART AS REBELLION

                            Art as rebellion is an entirely different genre in aesthetics. Here art as pure realism, art
                     as intuition, art as wish-fulfillment, art as empathy, art as communication, art as expression,
                     art as pure abstraction, etc. are discarded. Art as rebellion takes at least two forms: dadaism
                     and existential rebellion against the absurd.
                            Dadaism (1915-23) was an art movement that rebelled against art itself. It is sometimes
                     viewed as an intellectual revolt (against the social order) that came into existence in view of
                     the disillusioning experience of the First World War. Dada, which in French means “hobby
                     horse,” comes down to us to mean “to kill art.” It has a negative, anarchic, and nihilistic
                     tendency brought about by the situation during and immediately after World War I. It makes
                     a mockery of art itself. The paintings here are weird looking, not necessarily abstract but




aesthetics_beautiful.pmd               179                                              1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
180             Rolando M. Gripaldo



             contrary to reality itself such as Marcel Duchamp’s reproduction of Mona Lisa with moustache
             and goatee or a painting of a urinal labeled as “fountain.” There are nonsensical poems with
             combined words selected at random and formally read in public. Unintelligible lectures are
             formally read in unison
                    The other version of art as rebellion comes from Albert Camus (1967: 437-49). As an
             atheist, Camus considers life as absurd, pointless, ridiculous. One who surrenders easily to
             the absurd will commit suicide. The Suicide Man is a coward, but there is another way. Each
             one of us is condemned to die whether we like it or not. The Condemned Man, however,
             faces reality and confronts the absurd. In a way s/he is a rebel by trying to make sense of his/
             her own absurd existence. S/he attempts even to live a happy life. And what about the
             artists? Well, they rebel with their art. For Camus, there are two artistic extremes: pure realistic
             art which is a copy of absurdity and against which the artist rebels, and pure abstract art
             which goes overboard, a complete escape from absurd reality. In pure abstraction, the artist
             no longer rebels, s/he becomes an escapist, s/he is like the Suicide Man. His/her work has no
             more semblance with the reality s/he is supposed to be rebelling against. True art, according
             to Camus, must be somewhere between pure realism and pure abstractionism.
                    In the 1970s in the Philippines, another version of artistic rebellion is expressed by R.
             Esquivel Embuscado (1975; see Gripaldo 2004: 1-32). He argues in his aesthetics of
             dissectionism that artists must not simply copy the styles of the past and perpetuate them in
             the present but must dissect the depressive social scenarios of the present and freely project
             them in dissection towards the open future. That’s where new artists find their aesthetic
             fulfillment and satisfaction.

             POSTMODERNISM

                     The contemporary scene has produced a movement known as postmodernism. The
             “After Postmodernism” movement simply gets rid of the excesses or arbitraniness of
             postmodernism. There are many currents. One important current which I think will continue
             to be significant during the Third Millennium is the attempt to use art to level off cultures by
             effacing the distinction between mass culture and high culture.
                     The important precursor of this current is John Dewey (1960: 171-88; Titus 1968: 379),
             a pragmatist. He maintains that art should not be limited to museums and art galleries. We
             can find art in everyday life, in the quality of experience which is different from the ordinary,
             normal experience. When a basketball player shoots the ball gracefully, our reaction is
             “Wow, ang ganda!”3
                     In his article, “Postmodernism and the aestheticization of everyday life,” Mike
             Featherstone (1991: 265-90) contends, among others, that there is a leveling off of cultures.
             High culture, which is represented by artworks found in museums and galleries, is lowered
             while mass culture, which is represented by the aestheticization of everyday life, is elevated.
             The effect is the leveling off of cultures in that mass culture and high/elitist culture are on a
             par with each other.
                     Dante Leoncini (1995-96: 92-98) likewise contends in his postmodernist article, “On the
             possibility of making oneself a human work of art,” that a man or woman can become a work
             of art when he/she beautifies himself/herself. This is not petrified art in the museum but a
             living, walking work of art. Beauty, however, in this regard is very temporary.
                     Alvin Toffler (1970: 174-75) says that contemporary art is characterized by temporariness.
             It is called “Kinetic Art,” whose “very raison d’etre is transience.” This renders the traditional
             standards of permanence, uniqueness, and enduring universal value as inapplicable and
             obsolete. Artist nowadays work for the moment and do not believe that permanence is a
             virtue.




aesthetics_beautiful.pmd            180                                             1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
19: Is Aesthetics itself beautiful?         181



                     NATURE OF BEAUTY

                            The commonsensical view that beauty is out there existing independently of the
                     perceiving mind has been held by Plato and many realists. This is one other bias I had when
                     I was young. But like the other commonsensical positions, this has been challenged by John
                     Locke and by Bertrand Russell, among others.
                            According to John Locke ([1961]: 24-26), beauty is not a primary quality that resides in
                     the material object, but a secondary quality that resides in the perceiver. There are only three
                     primary qualities: solidity or weight, extension or volume, and motion. The data of the five
                     senses—smell, touch, sight, sound, and taste—are secondary qualities. Beauty is perceived
                     through the sense of sight, and in view of the relative standards that each individual may
                     possess, then his perception of beauty may vary. One work of art may be beautiful to behold
                     to someone, but not aesthetically satisfying to another. Bertrand Russell has put it more
                     succinctly. He says that we seem to perceive the firmament as beautiful at our safe distance
                     on earth, but there is really no beauty out there. When we come nearer to any star, we will get
                     burned. Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder.
                            Another philosophical point of view that will possibly continue to be discussed in
                     aesthetics is the circumstantialist point of view where beauty is argued to reside in a situational
                     perspective. It is not out there in the work of art, and it is not likewise in the eye of the
                     beholder. It is in between, depending upon one’s situational perspective. When one comes
                     very close to a painting, for example, s/he does not perceive the work as aesthetically fulfilling.
                     If, on the other hand, s/he goes quite far from the work, it is likewise not artistically satisfying.
                     But when s/he stands in just the proper distance, s/he perceives it as beautiful. S/he has
                     therefore the proper or appropriate situational perspective: the right situational line of vision
                     for the object of art to appear as beautiful. Beauty is in the perspective—the appropriate
                     situational one—and not in the object or the perceiver. Samuel Alexander (1960: 19) calls this
                     a “tertiary quality” of the object, the quality that lies in between the primary and secondary
                     qualities. Locke ([1961]: 25) himself simply refers to this third sort of quality as “barely
                     powers” of the object.

                     THEORIES OF BEAUTY

                            All these theories of beauty are possibilities in that they are not reducible to truth and
                     falsity.4 But they are cognitively meaningful in the sense that they serve as possible alternative
                     explanations of the nature of beauty, the nature of the creative impulse, and the effects of the
                     works of art to the audience or critic. As possibilities, they are irrefutable. One cannot refute
                     what is possible. He either accepts or rejects it.
                            To go back to our question: Are aesthetic theories themselves beautiful? Insofar as
                     they delight me, they fascinate me, they allow my mind to soar to the realm of possibilities, I
                     think, aesthetic theories are beautiful. Oh yes, persuasively, aesthetics is itself beautiful.

                     NOTES

                           1. Originally published in Unitas 73 (2), 2000. The present version is slightly revised.
                           2. Goethe (Kaufmann 1960: 31) says something similar conditionally: “If I love you,
                     what concern is that of yours?”
                           3. Literally, it means, “Wow, beautiful!” Idiomatically, it means, “Wow, superb!”
                           4. Rudolf Carnap (1955: 209-25) will certainly classify aesthetics, like metaphysics,
                     among the literary arts in that he considers it as an expression of preferences or emotions and
                     not reducible to truth or falsity.




aesthetics_beautiful.pmd              181                                              1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
182            Rolando M. Gripaldo



             REFERENCES

             Alexander, Samuel. 1960. Beauty and illusion. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New
                   York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Bergson, Henri. 1960. The individual and the type. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New
                   York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Camus, Albert.1967. Rebellion and art. In Perspective in aesthetics: Plato to Camus. Edited
                   by Peyton E. Richter. New York: Odyssey Press, Inc.
             Carnap, Rudolf. 1955. The rejection of metaphysics. In The age of analysis. Selected by
                   Morton White. New York: Mentor Books.
             Ceniza, Claro R. 2001. Thought, necessity and existence: Metaphysics and epistemology for
                   lay philosophers. Manila: De La Salle University Press.
             Croce, Benedetto. 1960. Intuition and expression. In Esthetics, Edited by Melvin Rader. New
                   York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Dadaism. 1998. From the Internet. <http: //www.peak.org/~dadaist/English/Graphics/>.
                   Accessed: 9 March 2000.
             Dewey, John. 1960. Having and experience. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York:
                   Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Embuscado, R. Esquivel. 1975. The aesthetic[s] of dissectionism. Pasay City: By the author.
             Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Postmodernism and the aestheticization of everyday life. In
                   Modernity and identity. Edited by Scott Lash and Jonathan Friedman. Oxford: Blackwell.
             Freud, Sigmund.1960. Wish-fulfillment and the unconscious. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin
                   Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Gripaldo, Rolando M. 2004. Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach, Part I, Section 2.
                   Manila: De La Salle University Press.
             Hudson, W. D. 1970. Modern moral philosophy. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
             Kaufmann, Walter. 1960. From Shakespeare to existentialism. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor
                   Books.
             Lee, Vernon.1960. Empathy. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
                   and Winston.
             Leoncini, Dante. 1995-96. On the possibility of making oneself a human work of art. Σοφια
                   25.
             Locke, John. [1961]. An essay concerning human understanding. Abridged by Richard Taylor.
                   In The empiricists. Garden City, New York: Dolphin Books.
             Ortega Y Gasset, Josè. 1960. The dehumanization of art. In Esthetics.Edited by Melvin Rader.
                   New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
             Ortiz, Ma. Aurora R., Teresita E. Erestain, Alice G. Guillermo, Myrna C. Montano, and Santiago
                   A. Pilar.1976. Art: Perception and appreciation.Manila: University of the East.
             Rader, Melvin, ed.1960. Esthetics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Titus, Harold H. 1968. Living issues in philosophy. 4th ed. New Delhi: Eurasia Publishing
                   House (P.) Ltd.
             Toffler, Alvin. 1970. Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
             Tolstoy, Leo.1960. The communication of emotion. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader.New
                   York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Wilde, Oscar. 1960. Nature’s imitation of art. In Esthetics.Edited by Melvin Rader. New York:
                   Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
             Worringer, Wilheim. 1960. Abstraction and empathy. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader.
                   New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.




aesthetics_beautiful.pmd           182                                         1/10/2006, 1:22 PM

More Related Content

What's hot

Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and ExpressionArt Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and ExpressionRyanBuer
 
Theory of Beauty
Theory of BeautyTheory of Beauty
Theory of Beautyruixiong89
 
Art appreciation
Art appreciationArt appreciation
Art appreciationArchy Bhatt
 
Lesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and Assumptions
Lesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and AssumptionsLesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and Assumptions
Lesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and AssumptionsCem Jin De
 
KCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is Art
KCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is ArtKCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is Art
KCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is ArtKelly Parker
 
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and ExpressionArt Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and ExpressionJanril Dela Cruz
 
Slideshow 1
Slideshow 1Slideshow 1
Slideshow 1Travis
 
0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expression
0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expression0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expression
0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expressionmprimrose
 
What Is Art? A Human Phenomenon
What Is Art? A Human PhenomenonWhat Is Art? A Human Phenomenon
What Is Art? A Human Phenomenonprofmedina
 
What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...
What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...
What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...Shin Chan
 

What's hot (20)

Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and ExpressionArt Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
 
Theory of Beauty
Theory of BeautyTheory of Beauty
Theory of Beauty
 
Art appreciation
Art appreciationArt appreciation
Art appreciation
 
Art appreciation course
Art appreciation courseArt appreciation course
Art appreciation course
 
Lesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and Assumptions
Lesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and AssumptionsLesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and Assumptions
Lesson 1 What is art appreciation?: Introduction and Assumptions
 
KCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is Art
KCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is ArtKCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is Art
KCC Art 141 Chapter 1 What Is Art
 
Art appreciation
Art appreciationArt appreciation
Art appreciation
 
85 86
85 8685 86
85 86
 
Form
FormForm
Form
 
Intro to art
Intro to artIntro to art
Intro to art
 
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and ExpressionArt Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
Art Appreciation: Creativity, Imagination, and Expression
 
Slideshow 1
Slideshow 1Slideshow 1
Slideshow 1
 
0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expression
0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expression0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expression
0873103 Art as a Form of Human Expression
 
What Is Art? A Human Phenomenon
What Is Art? A Human PhenomenonWhat Is Art? A Human Phenomenon
What Is Art? A Human Phenomenon
 
What is art
What is artWhat is art
What is art
 
E-Catalogue
E-CatalogueE-Catalogue
E-Catalogue
 
Art themes and purposes
Art themes and purposesArt themes and purposes
Art themes and purposes
 
Art as representation
Art as representationArt as representation
Art as representation
 
An introduction to the arts
An introduction to the artsAn introduction to the arts
An introduction to the arts
 
What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...
What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...
What is art? Different definitions of art as an introduction to 'Contemporary...
 

Viewers also liked

Brief historical introduction
Brief historical introductionBrief historical introduction
Brief historical introductionNoel Jopson
 
Discussion of plato's apology transcript
Discussion of plato's apology transcriptDiscussion of plato's apology transcript
Discussion of plato's apology transcriptNoel Jopson
 
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...Noel Jopson
 
Plato's Republic (part 2)
Plato's Republic (part 2)Plato's Republic (part 2)
Plato's Republic (part 2)Noel Jopson
 
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's ExistenceA Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's ExistenceNoel Jopson
 
Symbolism in religion
Symbolism in religionSymbolism in religion
Symbolism in religionNoel Jopson
 
Branches of philosophy
Branches of philosophyBranches of philosophy
Branches of philosophyNoel Jopson
 
Plato's Republic (Book I-II)
Plato's Republic (Book I-II)Plato's Republic (Book I-II)
Plato's Republic (Book I-II)Noel Jopson
 
Aristotle's Politics by Professor Steve Smith
Aristotle's Politics by Professor Steve SmithAristotle's Politics by Professor Steve Smith
Aristotle's Politics by Professor Steve SmithNoel Jopson
 
Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)Noel Jopson
 
The ambivalence of filipino traits and values
The ambivalence of filipino traits and valuesThe ambivalence of filipino traits and values
The ambivalence of filipino traits and valuesNoel Jopson
 
Brief historical introduction
Brief historical introductionBrief historical introduction
Brief historical introductionNoel Jopson
 
Filipino value of nonviolence
Filipino value of nonviolenceFilipino value of nonviolence
Filipino value of nonviolenceNoel Jopson
 
Isang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipino
Isang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipinoIsang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipino
Isang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipinoNoel Jopson
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Microcosms
MicrocosmsMicrocosms
Microcosms
 
Brief historical introduction
Brief historical introductionBrief historical introduction
Brief historical introduction
 
Discussion of plato's apology transcript
Discussion of plato's apology transcriptDiscussion of plato's apology transcript
Discussion of plato's apology transcript
 
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence (pa...
 
Plato's Republic (part 2)
Plato's Republic (part 2)Plato's Republic (part 2)
Plato's Republic (part 2)
 
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's ExistenceA Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence
A Primer on the Philosophy of Religion and the Problem of God's Existence
 
Symbolism in religion
Symbolism in religionSymbolism in religion
Symbolism in religion
 
Bahala na
Bahala naBahala na
Bahala na
 
Branches of philosophy
Branches of philosophyBranches of philosophy
Branches of philosophy
 
Letter
LetterLetter
Letter
 
Plato's Republic (Book I-II)
Plato's Republic (Book I-II)Plato's Republic (Book I-II)
Plato's Republic (Book I-II)
 
Primer in Logic
Primer in LogicPrimer in Logic
Primer in Logic
 
SONA 2011
SONA 2011SONA 2011
SONA 2011
 
Pakiramdam
PakiramdamPakiramdam
Pakiramdam
 
Aristotle's Politics by Professor Steve Smith
Aristotle's Politics by Professor Steve SmithAristotle's Politics by Professor Steve Smith
Aristotle's Politics by Professor Steve Smith
 
Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chap. 2 part 1)
 
The ambivalence of filipino traits and values
The ambivalence of filipino traits and valuesThe ambivalence of filipino traits and values
The ambivalence of filipino traits and values
 
Brief historical introduction
Brief historical introductionBrief historical introduction
Brief historical introduction
 
Filipino value of nonviolence
Filipino value of nonviolenceFilipino value of nonviolence
Filipino value of nonviolence
 
Isang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipino
Isang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipinoIsang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipino
Isang tagay sa pilosopiyang pilipino
 

Similar to Is aesthetics itself beautiful

ARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsger
ARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsgerARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsger
ARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsgerJustinDaveGallardo
 
A & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptx
A & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptxA & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptx
A & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptxSocialMediaLink1
 
CPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwb
CPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwbCPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwb
CPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwbkeithamisredillas
 
Art Appreciation - W1 (1).pdf
Art Appreciation - W1 (1).pdfArt Appreciation - W1 (1).pdf
Art Appreciation - W1 (1).pdfUltimatePlay
 
A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...
A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...
A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...KeziahRezaey
 
MODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdf
MODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdfMODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdf
MODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdfElenaGarcia581099
 
MODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdf
MODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdfMODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdf
MODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdfElenaGarcia581099
 
What is Art chapter1
What is Art chapter1What is Art chapter1
What is Art chapter1frogfamily5
 
Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)
Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)
Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)q8phzvrkm8
 
Questions about Beauty
Questions about BeautyQuestions about Beauty
Questions about BeautyVood
 
Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)
Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)
Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)Jugao Nichole
 
Feminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic Surgery
Feminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic SurgeryFeminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic Surgery
Feminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic Surgeryaliceyeow
 

Similar to Is aesthetics itself beautiful (18)

ARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsger
ARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsgerARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsger
ARTS APPRECIATIONssfsdgfsegergwtegwergtergdfghergsger
 
A & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptx
A & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptxA & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptx
A & H 100 - The Subject Of ArtSSSSS.pptx
 
CPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwb
CPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwbCPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwb
CPAR-Presentation1.pptxadjsk bsjsvsueb fake after Friday ! Sex 5avhaj23nwjwb
 
Art Appreciation - W1 (1).pdf
Art Appreciation - W1 (1).pdfArt Appreciation - W1 (1).pdf
Art Appreciation - W1 (1).pdf
 
ART AP.pptx
ART AP.pptxART AP.pptx
ART AP.pptx
 
A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...
A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...
A Window Into the Soul, Spirit, and Mind: The Artistic Intuition in Phenomeno...
 
ARTAPP LESSON 1.pptx
ARTAPP LESSON 1.pptxARTAPP LESSON 1.pptx
ARTAPP LESSON 1.pptx
 
MODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdf
MODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdfMODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdf
MODULE 4 (Art and Philosophy- Imitationism and Representationism).pdf
 
Essay Art
Essay ArtEssay Art
Essay Art
 
MODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdf
MODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdfMODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdf
MODULE 3 (Aesthetics - Study of Art and Beauty).pdf
 
What is Art chapter1
What is Art chapter1What is Art chapter1
What is Art chapter1
 
Sss
SssSss
Sss
 
Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)
Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)
Art Introduction & Assumptions (Art Intro)
 
Art Is An Art Essay
Art Is An Art EssayArt Is An Art Essay
Art Is An Art Essay
 
TOPC 1 ARTS AND HUMANITIES.pptx
TOPC 1 ARTS AND HUMANITIES.pptxTOPC 1 ARTS AND HUMANITIES.pptx
TOPC 1 ARTS AND HUMANITIES.pptx
 
Questions about Beauty
Questions about BeautyQuestions about Beauty
Questions about Beauty
 
Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)
Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)
Art Appreciation (Art Appreciation as a Way of Life)
 
Feminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic Surgery
Feminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic SurgeryFeminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic Surgery
Feminist Aesthetics and the \'Art\' of Cosmetic Surgery
 

More from Noel Jopson

Categorical syllogism
Categorical syllogismCategorical syllogism
Categorical syllogismNoel Jopson
 
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5Noel Jopson
 
Spanish Conquest of the Islands
Spanish Conquest of the IslandsSpanish Conquest of the Islands
Spanish Conquest of the IslandsNoel Jopson
 
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)Noel Jopson
 
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)Noel Jopson
 
Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)
Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)
Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)Noel Jopson
 
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)Noel Jopson
 
Some Philosophical School of Thought
Some Philosophical School of ThoughtSome Philosophical School of Thought
Some Philosophical School of ThoughtNoel Jopson
 
Introduction to philosophy
Introduction to philosophyIntroduction to philosophy
Introduction to philosophyNoel Jopson
 
Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)
Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)
Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)Noel Jopson
 
Branches of Government
Branches of GovernmentBranches of Government
Branches of GovernmentNoel Jopson
 
The Political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes
The Political philosophy of Thomas HobbesThe Political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes
The Political philosophy of Thomas HobbesNoel Jopson
 
Epistemology and the problem of knowledge
Epistemology and the problem of knowledgeEpistemology and the problem of knowledge
Epistemology and the problem of knowledgeNoel Jopson
 
Introduction to Ethics
Introduction to EthicsIntroduction to Ethics
Introduction to EthicsNoel Jopson
 
Aristotle's Politics (Summary)
Aristotle's Politics (Summary)Aristotle's Politics (Summary)
Aristotle's Politics (Summary)Noel Jopson
 
Contemporary philosophy
Contemporary philosophyContemporary philosophy
Contemporary philosophyNoel Jopson
 

More from Noel Jopson (20)

Categorical syllogism
Categorical syllogismCategorical syllogism
Categorical syllogism
 
Propositions
PropositionsPropositions
Propositions
 
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 5
 
Suffrage
SuffrageSuffrage
Suffrage
 
Citizenship
CitizenshipCitizenship
Citizenship
 
Spanish Conquest of the Islands
Spanish Conquest of the IslandsSpanish Conquest of the Islands
Spanish Conquest of the Islands
 
The Spanish Era
The Spanish EraThe Spanish Era
The Spanish Era
 
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)
Notes in Philippine History Chapter 4(Part 1)
 
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 3)
 
Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)
Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)
Powerpoint in Philippine History (Chapter 2 part 2)
 
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)
Notes in Philippine History (Chapter 1)
 
Some Philosophical School of Thought
Some Philosophical School of ThoughtSome Philosophical School of Thought
Some Philosophical School of Thought
 
Introduction to philosophy
Introduction to philosophyIntroduction to philosophy
Introduction to philosophy
 
Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)
Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)
Notes in Philippine Government and Constitution (Finals)
 
Branches of Government
Branches of GovernmentBranches of Government
Branches of Government
 
The Political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes
The Political philosophy of Thomas HobbesThe Political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes
The Political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes
 
Epistemology and the problem of knowledge
Epistemology and the problem of knowledgeEpistemology and the problem of knowledge
Epistemology and the problem of knowledge
 
Introduction to Ethics
Introduction to EthicsIntroduction to Ethics
Introduction to Ethics
 
Aristotle's Politics (Summary)
Aristotle's Politics (Summary)Aristotle's Politics (Summary)
Aristotle's Politics (Summary)
 
Contemporary philosophy
Contemporary philosophyContemporary philosophy
Contemporary philosophy
 

Is aesthetics itself beautiful

  • 1. 19: Is Aesthetics itself beautiful? 177 [Published in Rolando M. Gripaldo, ed. 2004. Philosophical landscape. Manila: Philippine National Philosophical Research Society] IS AESTHETICS ITSELF BEAUTIFUL?1 Rolando M. Gripaldo Aesthetics deals with theories of beauty. As the study of the beautiful, it tries to explain the nature of the creative impulse. This study is distinct and apart from the appraisal of the work of art which, in the contemporary scene, is called the philosophy of art. In practice, however, many philosophers do not separate the two. They discuss the functions of both the creator and the critic as one since for the artist or creator to judge whether his/her work is beautiful or not, s/he has to assume the function of the critic. The artist cannot appreciate his/her work unless s/he distances himself/herself from it by assuming the position of the audience or critic and by viewing his/her work objectively. For purposes of this paper, aesthetics is viewed to include the philosophy of art. There are three major types of works of art: (a) visual arts such as painting, sculpture, photography, drawing, architecture, interior design, landscaping, mosaic, computer design printing, etc.; (b) performing arts which include music, dance, theater, cinema; and (c) literary arts such as drama or play, novel, poem, short story, essay (Ortiz et al.1976: 1-31). Aesthetic theories take the form of literary arts, that is to say, they are written as essays. To analyze whether aesthetics is itself beautiful, we have to rephrase our title: “Are aesthetic theories, as essays, themselves beautiful?” I will attempt to answer this question in the affirmative. An aesthetic theory as a literary art has both form and content. Its form is the essay, but we are more concerned with the nature of its content, that is, whether as a theory of beauty, it is itself beautiful. LEXICAL MEANING OF BEAUTY There is only one lexical meaning of beauty that is relevant to aesthetics, viz, that which delights the perceiver or aesthete. This meaning is found in the dictionary and is uniform or the same to all who use the word “beautiful.” However, the standard of beauty for each individual may differ or, socially speaking, may be culture bound. (A Ugandan tribe, e.g., considers a fat woman beautiful.) One person may consider one work of art as beautiful or aesthetically satisfying while another will judge it weird or ugly. In other words, perceivers may disagree as to the criteria or standards of beauty, but they agree as to the meaning of beauty since that meaning is based on usage. We appreciate the thing we call beautiful, or to call a thing beautiful is to appreciate it in the sense that it delights us, it satisfies our cravings for beauty, it fascinates us. It lets us play with our imagination. There are various theories on the creative impulse, on where beauty resides, and on the criteria of appreciating what is beautiful. When I was young, I grew up in a rustic place. Every morning I saw the open landscape, the dewy meadows with carabaos and horses roaming around, and birds flying against the background of an azure sky. It was a sight to behold. It delighted and fascinated me, and I found it beautiful. In late afternoons, I saw the sun setting—a red, orange disc moving slowly down the horizon. Again, I was delighted and fascinated by it. To me, it was beautiful. Each one of us has a bias. My bias when I was young was that beauty exists out there objectively, or independently of my perceiving mind—that is, that beauty resides (is found) in nature. When I grew up and was introduced to artistic works—mostly paintings—I noticed aesthetics_beautiful.pmd 177 1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
  • 2. 178 Rolando M. Gripaldo that the artist copies or imitates nature such that it seems to me, commonsensically speaking, that art imitates nature or life. The paintings were like photographs of landscapes or animal. Plato (Titus 1968: 376) supports this theory when he says that the artist imitates what is pleasant. Aristotle likewise argues that painting arises from the desire to make likenesses of men and women, or that comedy mimics life. According to Titus (1968: 375): Aristotle…finds in imitation a natural tendency that he regards, along with the pleasure that comes from recognition of the object or scene portrayed, as the explanation of art. Painting grows out of the desire to make likenesses of people and things. The theater imitates men in action: comedy mimics people, and tragedy is an imitation of some of the events of real life. TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF ART This traditional interpretation that art as an imitation of life or nature has been challenged. And this is where the delight of aesthetics, for me, begins. Oscar Wilde (1960: 20-22) contends that nature or life can also imitate art. No one appreciated the fogs of London before because they were associated with colds and sickness, not until the impressionists started painting them. When the people saw the paintings, they were fascinated by the fogs and found them beautiful. Then every time London had the fogs, the people welcomed them, and found fogginess a beautiful scenery—a sight to behold. “The artist,” as it were, “provides a kind of education of the imagination and the senses, so that we perceive in nature what art has prepared us to see” (Rader 1960: 5). APPRECIATING ART It appears not only commonsensical but also rational to conceive that art imitates nature. But even this rationality for the artist to imitate nature has likewise been challenged. According to Henri Bergson (1960: 80-87), it is not reason or the intellect that enables the artist to imitate nature. Rather, beauty is intuited from an objective reality and depicted by the artist as he “sees” it. He does not actually imitate nature. The intellect, for Bergson, is the misfortune of man since it reconstructs reality. Reality is something that subsists. Time, for example, is the interpenetration of the past, present, and future. A part of the past and of the future partakes of the present. We cannot really subdivide reality, but the intellect does just that. The intellect constructs its own reality by subdividing time in terms of hours, minutes, and seconds, and by portraying what is typical. We need the intellect, of course, for our survival and it lets us enjoy the fruits of science and technology, but for a price: we cease to perceive reality correctly as individuality since the intellect has diminished our intuitive capacity. The artists have plenty of intuitions. They perceive the individual rather than the type. They transform it into a work of art. They intuit the individual (or the unique) rather than the typical as something beautiful. Art is not therefore imitation but intuition. A milder view can be reconstructed from the views of G. E. Moore and Plato. It is an attempt to reconcile art as imitation and art as intuition. G. E. Moore (Hudson 1970: 66-71) is a moral intuitionist who says about “good” that whenever we call a thing or action “good,” this word “good” refers to a unique object which we intuit. By the same reasoning, we may argue that “ beauty” refers to a unique object which the artist intuits when he perceives something beautiful, and beauty exists objectively—perhaps as a perfect form elsewhere as in Plato’s World of Forms or simply as a logical possibility (see Ceniza 2001 and Gripaldo 2004: 135-69). In this view, the artist imitates what s/he intuits in objective reality. Sigmund Freud (1960: 127-40) also challenges reason as the basis of the creative impulse. He maintains that art is wish fulfillment. The conscious ego or intellect is only the tip of the iceberg, which is largely dominated by the unconscious id. Artists like everyone else do have aesthetics_beautiful.pmd 178 1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
  • 3. 19: Is Aesthetics itself beautiful? 179 frustrations, and while many of us non-artists fulfill our frustrated desires in some other way as in dreaming or the like, the artist fulfills his/her frustrated wishes in his/her works of art. In extraordinary cases, some people who are not by nature artists are able to write good poetry because of frustrated desires. A suitor, for example, who is jilted by his lover may sit down— in desperation and frustration—and starts to write something which turns out to be an excellent piece of poetry. In appreciating the work of art, the participation of the audience is quite important. Vernon Lee (1960: 370-74) holds that to appreciate a work of art as beautiful is to empathize with it. This is the commonsensical view. Lee says that when one claps his hands, stumps his foot on a musical march, or shed tears on a melodramatic scene, then he is empathizing. To empathize is to show the sentimental or human aspect of the audience. This was my bias when I was young. Josè Ortega y Gasset (1960: 411-19) believes that true art is dehumanized art. The tendency of new artists is to get rid of sentimentalism, escape from the human element, or to get out of the crippling humanizing situation. Wilhelm Worringer (1960: 382-91) also contends that the tendency to abstraction is the “polar opposite of the need of empathy.” The artist, according to Worringer, has the psychological fear of space. Everything is spatially transitory or impermanent. The artist somehow wants to escape from impermanence and tries to encapsulate the perfect form of beauty—in terms of geometrical forms—which are permanent and absolutely immutable. As Worringer says (1960: 387): [The artist’s] strongest impulse was, as it were, to tear the external object out of the context of nature, out of the endless interplay of existence, to purify it of all dependence on life, all arbitrariness, to make it necessary and stable, to make it approximate to its absolute value. Allied to art as empathy is art as communication. Leo Tolstoy (1960: 62-71) thinks that for an artist to succeed in his/her work, s/he must be understood by the audience. In this regard art is a two-way communication. There must be a feedback mechanism whereby the artist will know if the audience understands his/her message; otherwise, s/he is a failure or his/her works are not aesthetically fulfilling. A contrary view to this is that of Benedetto Croce (1960: 88-104). He contends that what is important is simply the fact that the artist is able to express himself. Art as expression is therefore audience-free. Whether or not the present audience understands the artist does not matter. For all we know, the present generation will not understand the artistic work, but the future generation will. Impressionism was rejected during its time but is now accepted. Many rejected the works of Van Gogh and Picasso during their time but they now command a high price in auction sales. As one may express himself to a woman: “I love you but what concern is that of yours?”2 ART AS REBELLION Art as rebellion is an entirely different genre in aesthetics. Here art as pure realism, art as intuition, art as wish-fulfillment, art as empathy, art as communication, art as expression, art as pure abstraction, etc. are discarded. Art as rebellion takes at least two forms: dadaism and existential rebellion against the absurd. Dadaism (1915-23) was an art movement that rebelled against art itself. It is sometimes viewed as an intellectual revolt (against the social order) that came into existence in view of the disillusioning experience of the First World War. Dada, which in French means “hobby horse,” comes down to us to mean “to kill art.” It has a negative, anarchic, and nihilistic tendency brought about by the situation during and immediately after World War I. It makes a mockery of art itself. The paintings here are weird looking, not necessarily abstract but aesthetics_beautiful.pmd 179 1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
  • 4. 180 Rolando M. Gripaldo contrary to reality itself such as Marcel Duchamp’s reproduction of Mona Lisa with moustache and goatee or a painting of a urinal labeled as “fountain.” There are nonsensical poems with combined words selected at random and formally read in public. Unintelligible lectures are formally read in unison The other version of art as rebellion comes from Albert Camus (1967: 437-49). As an atheist, Camus considers life as absurd, pointless, ridiculous. One who surrenders easily to the absurd will commit suicide. The Suicide Man is a coward, but there is another way. Each one of us is condemned to die whether we like it or not. The Condemned Man, however, faces reality and confronts the absurd. In a way s/he is a rebel by trying to make sense of his/ her own absurd existence. S/he attempts even to live a happy life. And what about the artists? Well, they rebel with their art. For Camus, there are two artistic extremes: pure realistic art which is a copy of absurdity and against which the artist rebels, and pure abstract art which goes overboard, a complete escape from absurd reality. In pure abstraction, the artist no longer rebels, s/he becomes an escapist, s/he is like the Suicide Man. His/her work has no more semblance with the reality s/he is supposed to be rebelling against. True art, according to Camus, must be somewhere between pure realism and pure abstractionism. In the 1970s in the Philippines, another version of artistic rebellion is expressed by R. Esquivel Embuscado (1975; see Gripaldo 2004: 1-32). He argues in his aesthetics of dissectionism that artists must not simply copy the styles of the past and perpetuate them in the present but must dissect the depressive social scenarios of the present and freely project them in dissection towards the open future. That’s where new artists find their aesthetic fulfillment and satisfaction. POSTMODERNISM The contemporary scene has produced a movement known as postmodernism. The “After Postmodernism” movement simply gets rid of the excesses or arbitraniness of postmodernism. There are many currents. One important current which I think will continue to be significant during the Third Millennium is the attempt to use art to level off cultures by effacing the distinction between mass culture and high culture. The important precursor of this current is John Dewey (1960: 171-88; Titus 1968: 379), a pragmatist. He maintains that art should not be limited to museums and art galleries. We can find art in everyday life, in the quality of experience which is different from the ordinary, normal experience. When a basketball player shoots the ball gracefully, our reaction is “Wow, ang ganda!”3 In his article, “Postmodernism and the aestheticization of everyday life,” Mike Featherstone (1991: 265-90) contends, among others, that there is a leveling off of cultures. High culture, which is represented by artworks found in museums and galleries, is lowered while mass culture, which is represented by the aestheticization of everyday life, is elevated. The effect is the leveling off of cultures in that mass culture and high/elitist culture are on a par with each other. Dante Leoncini (1995-96: 92-98) likewise contends in his postmodernist article, “On the possibility of making oneself a human work of art,” that a man or woman can become a work of art when he/she beautifies himself/herself. This is not petrified art in the museum but a living, walking work of art. Beauty, however, in this regard is very temporary. Alvin Toffler (1970: 174-75) says that contemporary art is characterized by temporariness. It is called “Kinetic Art,” whose “very raison d’etre is transience.” This renders the traditional standards of permanence, uniqueness, and enduring universal value as inapplicable and obsolete. Artist nowadays work for the moment and do not believe that permanence is a virtue. aesthetics_beautiful.pmd 180 1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
  • 5. 19: Is Aesthetics itself beautiful? 181 NATURE OF BEAUTY The commonsensical view that beauty is out there existing independently of the perceiving mind has been held by Plato and many realists. This is one other bias I had when I was young. But like the other commonsensical positions, this has been challenged by John Locke and by Bertrand Russell, among others. According to John Locke ([1961]: 24-26), beauty is not a primary quality that resides in the material object, but a secondary quality that resides in the perceiver. There are only three primary qualities: solidity or weight, extension or volume, and motion. The data of the five senses—smell, touch, sight, sound, and taste—are secondary qualities. Beauty is perceived through the sense of sight, and in view of the relative standards that each individual may possess, then his perception of beauty may vary. One work of art may be beautiful to behold to someone, but not aesthetically satisfying to another. Bertrand Russell has put it more succinctly. He says that we seem to perceive the firmament as beautiful at our safe distance on earth, but there is really no beauty out there. When we come nearer to any star, we will get burned. Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder. Another philosophical point of view that will possibly continue to be discussed in aesthetics is the circumstantialist point of view where beauty is argued to reside in a situational perspective. It is not out there in the work of art, and it is not likewise in the eye of the beholder. It is in between, depending upon one’s situational perspective. When one comes very close to a painting, for example, s/he does not perceive the work as aesthetically fulfilling. If, on the other hand, s/he goes quite far from the work, it is likewise not artistically satisfying. But when s/he stands in just the proper distance, s/he perceives it as beautiful. S/he has therefore the proper or appropriate situational perspective: the right situational line of vision for the object of art to appear as beautiful. Beauty is in the perspective—the appropriate situational one—and not in the object or the perceiver. Samuel Alexander (1960: 19) calls this a “tertiary quality” of the object, the quality that lies in between the primary and secondary qualities. Locke ([1961]: 25) himself simply refers to this third sort of quality as “barely powers” of the object. THEORIES OF BEAUTY All these theories of beauty are possibilities in that they are not reducible to truth and falsity.4 But they are cognitively meaningful in the sense that they serve as possible alternative explanations of the nature of beauty, the nature of the creative impulse, and the effects of the works of art to the audience or critic. As possibilities, they are irrefutable. One cannot refute what is possible. He either accepts or rejects it. To go back to our question: Are aesthetic theories themselves beautiful? Insofar as they delight me, they fascinate me, they allow my mind to soar to the realm of possibilities, I think, aesthetic theories are beautiful. Oh yes, persuasively, aesthetics is itself beautiful. NOTES 1. Originally published in Unitas 73 (2), 2000. The present version is slightly revised. 2. Goethe (Kaufmann 1960: 31) says something similar conditionally: “If I love you, what concern is that of yours?” 3. Literally, it means, “Wow, beautiful!” Idiomatically, it means, “Wow, superb!” 4. Rudolf Carnap (1955: 209-25) will certainly classify aesthetics, like metaphysics, among the literary arts in that he considers it as an expression of preferences or emotions and not reducible to truth or falsity. aesthetics_beautiful.pmd 181 1/10/2006, 1:22 PM
  • 6. 182 Rolando M. Gripaldo REFERENCES Alexander, Samuel. 1960. Beauty and illusion. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bergson, Henri. 1960. The individual and the type. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Camus, Albert.1967. Rebellion and art. In Perspective in aesthetics: Plato to Camus. Edited by Peyton E. Richter. New York: Odyssey Press, Inc. Carnap, Rudolf. 1955. The rejection of metaphysics. In The age of analysis. Selected by Morton White. New York: Mentor Books. Ceniza, Claro R. 2001. Thought, necessity and existence: Metaphysics and epistemology for lay philosophers. Manila: De La Salle University Press. Croce, Benedetto. 1960. Intuition and expression. In Esthetics, Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Dadaism. 1998. From the Internet. <http: //www.peak.org/~dadaist/English/Graphics/>. Accessed: 9 March 2000. Dewey, John. 1960. Having and experience. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Embuscado, R. Esquivel. 1975. The aesthetic[s] of dissectionism. Pasay City: By the author. Featherstone, Mike. 1991. Postmodernism and the aestheticization of everyday life. In Modernity and identity. Edited by Scott Lash and Jonathan Friedman. Oxford: Blackwell. Freud, Sigmund.1960. Wish-fulfillment and the unconscious. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gripaldo, Rolando M. 2004. Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach, Part I, Section 2. Manila: De La Salle University Press. Hudson, W. D. 1970. Modern moral philosophy. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books. Kaufmann, Walter. 1960. From Shakespeare to existentialism. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books. Lee, Vernon.1960. Empathy. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Leoncini, Dante. 1995-96. On the possibility of making oneself a human work of art. Σοφια 25. Locke, John. [1961]. An essay concerning human understanding. Abridged by Richard Taylor. In The empiricists. Garden City, New York: Dolphin Books. Ortega Y Gasset, Josè. 1960. The dehumanization of art. In Esthetics.Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Ortiz, Ma. Aurora R., Teresita E. Erestain, Alice G. Guillermo, Myrna C. Montano, and Santiago A. Pilar.1976. Art: Perception and appreciation.Manila: University of the East. Rader, Melvin, ed.1960. Esthetics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Titus, Harold H. 1968. Living issues in philosophy. 4th ed. New Delhi: Eurasia Publishing House (P.) Ltd. Toffler, Alvin. 1970. Future shock. New York: Bantam Books. Tolstoy, Leo.1960. The communication of emotion. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Wilde, Oscar. 1960. Nature’s imitation of art. In Esthetics.Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Worringer, Wilheim. 1960. Abstraction and empathy. In Esthetics. Edited by Melvin Rader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. aesthetics_beautiful.pmd 182 1/10/2006, 1:22 PM