 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Knowlsey's Philosophy Realm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Aesthetics |
|
Ethics |
|
Modern Science |
|
Reason |
|
Aesthetics 2 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An Essay On Aesthetics |
|
|
What plausibility is there in the claim expressed in the Ideal Theory of Croce and Collingwood, that artworks are mental objects, ontologically speaking?
I believe that to discuss this we must first have an understanding of what is meant by an ?artwork?. In his essay The Modern System of Arts, Kristeller says that ???Art? comprises above all the five major arts of painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry.? Aesthetics, p91. He also says that there are decorative arts, the dance and theatre, opera and eloquence and prose in literature. Now as an artwork I am going to be meaning any work that involves any of the above. |
|
|
| We must also know what is meant by ?ontologically?. The word ontology is derived from the Latin words ?ontos?, which means being and ?logos?, which means knowledge, so it means the knowledge of being. In terms of artwork I am taking this to mean what sort of things are artworks. I have given a brief explanation of artworks above, but I will discuss this in more depth later on in the essay. |
|
|
| I would now like to give a brief overview of what the Ideal Theory entails. The Ideal Theorist believes that artworks are mental objects, and the physical object that we often see, such as a painting is not the artwork itself. The object that we see is only a means of communicating the idea of the artwork to the viewer. |
|
|
| Benedetto Croce was one of the founders of this form of thinking. He didn?t like to think that all there was to an artwork was the actual visible or audible object. His views are that the art is the original idea or the inspiration that the artist has, and whether or not the actual picture or music is the same is not detrimental to the actual ?artwork?. This is because, as I have already said, the actual ?artwork? is what is in the head of the artist. |
|
|
| He believes that all actions, even actions of will are preceded by cognitive activity, and I believe that it is this cognitive activity that he takes to be the ?artwork?. This is relevant because the action of producing what we see or hear as art, must be first thought about by the artist, which takes the form of cognitive activity. |
|
|
For Croce there did not seem to be any need for the actual physical ?artwork? itself: -
|
|
|
?The aesthetic stage is completely over and done with when impressions have been worked up into expressions. When we have captured the internal world, formed an apt and lively idea of a figure or a statue, found a musical motif, expression has begun and ended: there is no need for anything else.? Croce, The Aesthetic p55.
|
|
|
| I believe that this is one of the most important passages in this book, as it shows his views on ?artworks?, and it also gives us a clue as to the mental processes that he thinks occur in the formation of ideas. It seems that he thinks that what we originally think of is our impression, and when we think about how we would form this, for example formulating a tune in your head we work this into being an expression. |
|
|
| For Croce, once this expression has been formed in the mind of the artist, the aesthetic part of the process has finished. What follows is the production of a means of trying to convey the artist?s expressions to others, in the form of a painting or a piece of music etc. He seems to think that there is a difference between what is to be considered aesthetic and what is to be considered artistic. He views the artistic as the physical means by which we form our ?artwork?, but this is not the aesthetic, as this lies solely in our minds. |
|
|
| Croce believes that art is a form of intuition. This is the way in which we would view of ?artwork? in our mind. He describes it as a ?pure and spontaneous imaginative form? of intuition. This shows that he still views ?artworks? as what is generally conceived of art, in that it is spontaneous and pure. The fact that they exist solely in the mind does not seem to take anything away from the general conceptions. |
|
|
| This leads to the act of inspiration being one of the most highly aesthetic acts, for the inspiration is where the artist has a vision of what the ?artwork? should be. For Croce, I believe that when he talks about ?intuition?, he is talking about a form of inspiration, for when we are inspired by something, be it external or internal we use our intuition to form in our minds-eye, what the idea is going to look or sound like. It does not involve any physical aspects whatsoever. |
|
|
I believe that the best way to express Croce?s views can be found on Encarta 99, under the heading of Aesthetics and Art.
|
|
|
?Works of art are the expression, in material form of such intuitions; but beauty and ugliness are not qualities of the works of art but qualities of the spirit expressed intuitively in these works of art.?
|
|
|
| I feel that this grasps what Croce is trying to say, an ?art work? is merely the physical expression of the artists emotions. One of the greatest aspects of this theory is that it allows for beauty and ugliness, without having to be bias against the artwork. For many people do not like the work of H.R. Geiger, this is because his works are disturbing, if works of art are judged on beauty, as they often are, then this wouldn?t allow for his work. Because of the freedom that the Ideal Theory allows, this means that Geiger?s work can be judged alongside with the likes of Raphael, and may be judged better because of the emotional qualities of the painting. |
|
|
| These views are very similar to those of the philosopher R.G. Collingwood. He is also an Ideal Theorist. I find that Collingwood is clearer in his explanations than Croce, but the underlying concepts are the same. In discussing Collingwood I am going to be focussing on his discussion in his book The Principles of Art. |
|
|
| Collingwood seems to give our mind a more interactive role in our evaluation of the aesthetics. He still believes that what we see when we look at a piece of art is not the actual piece of art itself, but merely a way of expressing the artists ideas. He focuses on problems that would upon first thought pose serious problems for his views, but he explains his views well. |
|
|
| Many people would laugh if you told them that when they heard a poem, they weren?t really hearing a poem, which seems to be what Croce and Collingwood are saying. Collingwood says that at first it seems paradoxical for a poem to exist purely as ?an instance of imaginative creation?, and for it also to be ?real collection of noises?. He says that they do not contradict each other because they are different things. He speaks about what he calls ?art proper?, this is where the artist thinks of a tune, or a painting, and contrasts it with a ?work of art?, which is the physical translation of the artists ideas into the external world. The ?work of art? is the outcome of a craft, whereas the outcome of ?art proper? is a mental image or tune etc. |
|
|
For Collingwood, the ?work of art? is only a means for the viewer to experience the ?art proper?. It seems that not everyone can actually experience the ?art proper?. He talks about music and discusses the important question of what is the actual work of art? Is it the music that we hear, or is it in the head of the composer? And if it is in the head of the composer can we experience it? He answers the question by saying: -
|
|
|
?The noises made by the performers, and heard by the audience, are not the music at all; they are only a means by which the audience, if they listen intelligently (not otherwise), can reconstruct for themselves the imaginary tune that existed in the composers head.? Collingwood, Principles of Art, p139.
|
|
|
| This shows that it is possible for the subject to experience the artists original intentions, but it is also possible for them not to. This method of categorising ?art proper? as a mental process allows for one of the most important aspects of art, that of emotion. |
|
|
| Emotion is often associated with art, and when reading reviews of works of art it is common for the reviewer to describe the painting in emotional terms such as a painting having sense of joy, or depicting love. Because of the very nature of art in the understanding of Croce and Collingwood, the role of emotion is emphasised. Due to the fact that the ?art proper? is purely mental, it therefore means that it has a closer link with emotions than if it was just a physical object. As we know emotions are felt not through external means, they are internal functions of our mind, and because ?art proper? is also an internal function of the mind the link between the two is heightened. This is what Collingwood wanted, a closer relationship with emotions. I believe the ?work of art? to be a physical representation of the emotions of the artist, whereas the ?art proper? is the actual emotion itself. |
|
|
There is still the problem of how we can distinguish between ?works of art? and ?art proper?. Although I discussed it previously I feel that Collingwood still has more to say on the topic that is worthwhile. He uses a good analogy for listening to music. He says that listening to music is like listening to a lecture on science. They both consist of noise, but behind both there is a meaning. Getting to the ?art proper? in listening to music is similar to getting the meaning out of the lecture.
|
|
|
?In each case, what we get out of it is something we have to reconstruct with our own minds, and by our own efforts? Principles, p141.
|
|
|
| There seems to be a meaning that we have to actively get out of ?art proper?. This contrasts with many views on aesthetics, but the main opposed philosopher would be Immanuel Kant. Kant is often thought of to have started the modern way of thinking about aesthetics, but his views are often opposed. I believe that Collingwood?s and Croce?s views are in direct opposition to Kant. Kant thought that when we viewed a piece of art, we had to do so with a sense of disinterestedness, this meant that we shouldn?t engage with the art or experience any emotion because of it. |
|
|
| This is in direct opposition to their theories because to understand or actually experience what I am going to call the ?actual art? (this is the same as Collingwood?s ?art proper? but I feel that this explains it better), means that we have to actively engage ourselves with the ?art work?. Also, the aim of art for Collingwood and Croce is to express emotions and when we experience the actual art we are experiencing emotion, and not just any emotion, but the emotion of the artist. |
|
|
| Although this theory allows for what I deem to be the most important aspect of art, namely the emotions that can be experienced, it does however have many problems. One of the main ones would be the fact that not all artworks could actually be composed in the artists head at one point in time. If we consider classical music, then the problem becomes obvious, although many composers are excessively intelligent, it is still hard to believe that they could compose a whole symphony in their heads at one point. |
|
|
| It also poses problems for improvised music, such as jazz. For if as many people say, the musicians are making up the entire piece on the spot, then it is not possible for it to be a purely mental piece of actual art. In response to this I believe that an Ideal Theorist would say that although the actual tune did not exist in the musicians head prior to the performance, the emotion did. And the improvised music is just a way of trying to enable the listener to experience the emotion that he was conveying. |
|
|
| Many people would also argue that seeing as the actual art only exists in the mind of the artist, then when the artist dies, the music goes with them. This is a more difficult case to argue for, as it does seem that this is the case, but I believe that the music can survive. Although the actual art has been destroyed, there are bound to be copies of the ?art work? about, and if the listener has the capabilities to engage and understand the music then it still lives on, although it may not be the same as the original ideas, it is still the same actual art. |
|
|
| A similar problem would be that if the art proper is not being thought about at any particular time, then it also ceases to exist. The argument that I would use would be similar to the previous. Although the actual art may be gone for a period of time, there are still the means to experience it, via the ?art work?. |
|
|
| I however find that the most difficult problem to deal with is that of ready-made art, it also raises the infamous question of, What is art? I would like to leave the latter question for a while by merely saying that anything that can be thought of in an aesthetic way, be it a pile of manure or a Van Gogh. I am going to use the example of Paul Ziff?s in his essay Anything Viewed (Aesthetics, p23). |
|
|
| Ziff argues that anything can be thought of as art, he asks us to consider ?A gator basking a mound of dried dung.?, now I consider that we can view this scene in an aesthetic manner, but how would an Ideal Theorist deal with this problem. I believe that they would say that although a natural scene may appear beautiful, it is not actual art. This is because it has no artist as a creator. It would be possible for one to say that nature is the artist, but this gives rise to many arguments against it that are almost impossible to prove. The only way to think of this is, as a piece of ?art work?, that has no emotional meaning attached to it. This seems to take away from the natural beauties of the world, but I think that they are not art in the same way as a painting. For, if a piece of art has meaning, then it must have been produced by someone to instil in it this sense of meaning. But, as I have said, nature has no artist, and can therefore have no meaning attached to it, so it must come under a different classification of art, that I am going to call Natural Art. |
|
|
| Now that I have discussed the views and issues raised by The Ideal Theory, I would like to discuss what consequences this has in terms of ontology. As I have said, for the Ideal Theorist the actual art exists as a mental state, now this raises the question of what can be considered as art. I have already said that anything that can be considered in an aesthetic manner is art, but I believe that there are different types of art. Croce and Collingwood described two different types of art, namely the actual art (the art that the artist intuits) and works of art (that are the physical representations of the actual). Actual art can take the form of anything that is thought of, it allows for abstract thoughts to be considered as art as well as tunes or images seen or heard in ones head. Works of art are physical objects, and I believe that there are two different types of works of art. Those that have a creator I shall call works of art, and those that do not which I will call Natural Art. |
|
|
| The Ideal Theory doesn?t make any changes in the category of what is art, it merely shows us that some forms of art, works of art, are just means to another end. What has been considered art can still be thought of as art, but there is still the difference of what type of art it is. What we have considered as art previously, namely paintings, sculptures, buildings, literary and music etc is still art, but it doesn?t have the meaning of the actual art that it resembles. |
|
|
As I have shown the Ideal Theory does have its problems, but the advantages seem to be greater than the disadvantages. The role of emotion and the interactive nature of art have been heightened, and also the role of the subject has gained a higher status. I believe that the Ideal Theory is a sound theory that describes art more in terms of what it is, instead of falling into the trap of describing what it represents. It also has the positive aspect, that virtually anyone can be considered as an artist as I would expect most people have thought of an original painting or tune in their mind, and under the terms of the Ideal Theory, this means that they are artists, albeit artists with no audience, but who cares because the show must go on.
|
|
|
Bibliography
|
|
|
| Aesthetics, Susan Feagin & Patrick Maynard, Oxford Readers. |
|
|
| The Aesthetic as the Science of Expression and of the Linguistic in General, Cambridge University Press 1992. |
|
|
The Principles of Art, R.G. Collingwood, Oxford University Press, 1967.
|
|