Let us turn to some examples from the interviews I conducted with group members of guided tours at the PMA. The first tour was a brief overview of the modernist period of art, from the mid nineteenth century to the early twentieth; which moved chronologically from pre-impressionism to cubism. One example of a monumental work of art that is not very beautiful according to archaic conventions of beauty greatly influenced Impressionism. This was Edouard Manet’s
1).
This painting depicts a publicized battle scene that took place off the coast of Cherbourg, France during the American Civil War. This signified a break from traditional subject matter for narrative representational art because first, it was a depiction of current events, and second, it had visible brushstrokes on the surface of the canvas and third, the horizon line was way above the normal standard for sea/landscape paintings—which was taboo for master artists at that time. Since narrative representational art was confined to renditions of religious, mythological, or historical events bound to the ideals of beauty and ideology, the act of painting a contemporary event in a style with no traditional aesthetic in mind was revolutionary. In my interview with Sally, she discloses the importance of gaining this understanding:
S: The chronology of the art was really important; it helped to know why this stuff [new style of art] was happening in the world, like when tubes of paint were available… stuff like that. Like, in Manet’s painting, of the battle, it’s one thing to read in the book, but to see the painting—these guys were witnesses to the battle—it was really crazy!”
Here, Sally’s new found enjoyment of the art is due to her understanding of its historical context. It is arguable whether or not she would have responded so passionately about a few blown up ships from a peculiar vantage point had she not been given this information.
In my interview with Mary, on the second tour (a brief overview of the museum’s entire collection), she refers to two paintings produced a few years prior to Manet’s battle scene of a married couple: Franklin R. Street’s
2).
The artist was a naïve painter whose talent was not exceptional compared to his contemporaries. The couple appears to be white, but is in fact, African American. The paintings were hidden for one-hundred and fifty years and only recently loaned to the museums collection:
M: Like, the marriage piece, we wouldn't have known that they were married. And the background and the pillars; one was tumultuous and one was calm, we wouldn't know that that represented their personalities… and that they were black, well mixed. The history definitely helps, like I said, we wouldn't have known that. It was really interesting.
The history of a work of art certainly does make it more interesting, and what enhances the aesthetic pleasure of viewing these works of art is the understanding of their historical context. For instance, the social milieu in which this work was created frowned upon “mixed blood” and so this work was obfuscated due to Western ideas of white-European superiority. Had this rudimentary painting with undeniably significant subject matter not been hidden, it most likely would have been destroyed. Consequently, without this historical context, one might pass by a particular work of art without concern. As Becker points out, “The taste for such experience is a socially acquired one, not different in kind from acquired tastes for oysters or dry martinis.” (Becker:1953:239)
When I refer to the situational context of a work of art, I am mainly speaking of the lived experience of the artists who created it. When we see the humanity behind a work of art, we see a reflection of ourselves in another time and place. If we want to understand why Van Gough laid thick, heavy strokes of paint on his canvas, we must understand not only the historical context (such as the introduction of tubes of oil paint), but the compulsion that necessitated his desire to do so; his lived experience and his rapport with societal norms. I will posit that another aspect of contextual understanding has to do with the humanity behind the work of art that elicits an emotional response in the viewer. In my interview with Mary, I asked her what her emotional response was to the collection highlighted by the tour in general:
M: I got the feeling from the earlier paintings of wealth and more regal status, but the contemporary stuff was more about the feelings of the artist—they were real people, they were more artsy. They didn't make any money, and no one liked them, but they didn't care, they just wanted to make art. That really hit a soft spot for me.
Sally, who was part of the first tour, commented on the radical idealist lifestyle of the Impressionists:
S: It was really neat. When we were learning about the Impressionists, I just kept thinking, these guys were like the photo journalists of their time—recording life the way it happened. It helps to relate you to these artists; to imagine life the way that it was for them.
Both Sally and Mary seem to have a special affinity with contemporary artists, whose work strove to triumph individuality over conformity to societal norms. Their emotional response was based upon the recognition of human agency in the culmination of revolutionary thought and action; they perhaps saw that these artists were at the forefront in the confrontation between freedom of expression and oppressive social structures. This, although not articulated by the tour group members but understood implicitly, has a profound impact on the appreciation of art, because without this understanding, there would be no human element on which to reflect our own ideals.
When considering topical contexts of information available for the aesthetic appreciation of art, one does not necessarily need to gain historical or situational concepts to aesthetically judge a given work of art. Topical information exists readily in our everyday lives via news media, pop culture, and locally experienced realities. To gather information for this portion of my inquiry, I simply observed people’s remarks on specific works of art, and conducted interviews with select and seemingly approachable individuals.
fig 3.
Thomas Hirschorn’s
Camo-Outgrowth (winter), 2005 (
fig. 3) is a piece that I observed. It is an installation of a series of globes mounted on the wall in six horizontal rows. Each globe has a tumorous growth partially covering one area. The growths are camouflaged in appearance, and the placement of the growth varies from globe to globe. Underneath of these globes, there are three rows of newspaper clipping images of people wearing camouflage, either for fashion or in combat. This piece is highly conceptual, and the concept is one that is instantly recognizable. One of the first comments that I observed was from an older woman directed toward a small child: “Just seeing the globes and the camouflage, you can see that it’s about war and global conflict.” After observing one man who seemed to be excited by the piece, John, I decided to interview him:
E: What did you see in that piece?
J: The influence of military and fashion; like, it’s subtle—always there—from teeny boppers to rap artists.
E: What would you say your emotional response was to this piece?
J: Sadness—my brother is in the military, and I felt like it was insensitive toward the military, like there was no respect for what they do.
E: How would you compare this type of work to more classical, representational art?
J: Well, I guess in classical art, you're more physically involved… trying to figure stuff out. It’s beautiful, but like, I think more boring, [laughs] I guess. This kind of stuff is right in your face. You don't have to think about it, the answer is right there.
E: So, you're saying it points to something? What does it point to?
J: Here and now, like, this guy’s attitude about the military, stuff like that.
In my interview with John, he clearly addresses my point on the topical context of this contemporary work. Often, the answer is right in front of you, and the understanding needed to aesthetically judge the work is already available to you because you are part of contemporary society.
(
fig 4) Zoe Strauss, I-95 Detail
I also visited Zoe Strauss’ exhibit during my fieldwork (
fig. 4). She is a photographer from Philadelphia who chose to capture life in the most destitute corners of American experience. She records snippets of poverty in specific time and place—Muckleshoot Reservation; Camden, NJ; Philadelphia, PA; Las Vegas, NE—and captures unflattering, and often disturbing images of run-down places and washed-up people. While viewing her work, I heard one enthusiastic woman comment, “This is my kind of art. I love this.”
The Faculty of Imagination and Its Relation to Personal Experience
It is true that a certain abandonment and self-forgetting is often characteristic of high thought and noble action. But there would be no production, no high thought or noble action, if we relied entirely upon these impassioned moments without preparing ourselves to have them. It is only as we have self-consciousness that we can be aware of those special tendencies which we assert in production, or can learn how to express them, or even have the desire to do so. The moment of insight would be impossible without the persistent self-conscious endeavor that preceded it, nor has enthusiastic action any value without a similar discipline.
[7]
The faculty of imagination that I am concerned with is much like Cooley’s idea that “society is in the mind.”
[8] If the imagination were a faculty based on a priori knowledge, then I would argue that the imagination could not be vivid or concise, or articulate. During my observation of both tours, I heard comments that related personal experience to newly acquired information pertaining to the social context of the piece. This is evidence of the faculty of imagination at work, and the vocalization of the internal dialog that formulates thought. One example of this was an observation made by Sally when viewing the Bust of Mathilde Bonepart. Sally commented, “You know, that’s how Yvette wore her hair at her wedding, she was French…it was a beautiful wedding.” Although this comment does not constitute for reliable evidence of a working imagination, it has merit because of its strong indication that Sally’s lived experience is being referenced while simultaneously gaining new visual and contextual information about the piece. Her imagination draws upon images of a beautiful French wedding which allows her to formulate this thought. Upon further sociological investigation, I believe that more empirical evidence can be found to support the claim that the imagination relies more upon a posteriori knowledge, rather than a priori knowledge, and is more in line with Cooley’s theory of “the society within.”
In conclusion, with the help of Becker’s theory of social construction and Cooley’s theory of “the society within,” I have made an effort to show that the “free harmony” of the faculties in aesthetic judgement of art are dependent upon personal experience and learned conceptualization of the historical, situational, or topical milieu in which the work of art is situated, and not, necessarily upon a blend of a priori faculties based upon intuitive ideas of beauty and art and the faculties of understanding. Further research in this area would uncover what portion of Kant’s theory of aesthetic judgement is still valid, and which require more scrupulous investigation on its application to modern and contemporary works of art. I intend to conduct further research to answer the question: What kind of information (visual or not) in contemporary art are we judging aesthetically?
Notes
[1] See: "Kant's Aesthetics and Teleology." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/>.
[2] Unless, of course, there are words written directly on the sculpture, installation, or painting surface that convey some sort of message or idea, but even still, are not usually blatant empirical truths
[3] Immanuel Kant’s The Critique of Judgement was the first to speculate that aesthetic judgement was a combination of both rationalist and empiricist theories. According to Kant, “free harmony” of the faculties is the combination of both imagination and understanding. However, the imagination is not dependent upon understanding, and therefore perceives the object in a non-conceptual, universally valid manner.
[4] The works of art that I am concerned with are both mimetic and narrative representations of the world (religious iconography, historical events, mythological narratives) and of human actions (social events, depictions of proletariats, and photography) and conceptual representations (abstract expressionism, cubism, surrealism, fauvism, dada, etc.), or non-representational art.
[5] Note: topical context data was not gathered by observing or interviewing members of the group tours, but by observing and interviewing independent parities who were viewing works displayed in the contemporary art section of the PMA.
[6] From H. S. Becker’s Becoming a Marihuana User (pg. 242)
[7] From C.H. Cooley’s Human Nature and the Social Order; pg. 197
[8] taken from Randal Collins’ Four Sociological Traditions
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel, Nicholas Walker, and James Creed. Meredith. Critique of Judgement. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.
"Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Art and Epistemology []. Web. 26 Feb. 2012. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/art-ep/>.
"Kant's Aesthetics and Teleology." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/>.
Becker, Howard S. "Becoming a Marihuana User." American Journal of Sociology 59.3 (1953): 235. Print.
Cooley, Charles Horton. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Schocken, 1964. Print.
Collins, Randall, and Randall Collins. Four Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford UP, 1994. Print.
