WORK, PLAY, FOSSILS
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Sunday, March 3, 2013
WRITING SAMPLE
Aesthetics and Epistemology
Abstract
Art appreciation is enhanced by (a.) acquiring knowledge of the historical, situational, or topical context of the work, and (b.) its personal relation to the observer. This appreciation is dependent upon empirical truths either available to the observer topically, or acquired through conversational or literature-based knowledge. Data was collected through observation of guided tours of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s collection, and follow-up interviews with members of the tour groups. This theory calls into question Kant’s theory of aesthetic judgement, where “free harmony” of the faculties is thought to rely on a priori knowledge, and is not bound to experience or empirical facts.[1]
Most visual art is non-propositional, meaning it conveys emotion, attitudes, and interests about the world without asserting truth linguistically.[2] Yet, the original emotion, attitudes, and interests that it conveys belong initially to the artist. Beyond that, it is dependent upon an audience to judge the piece aesthetically. I will posit that this aesthetic evaluation is enhanced by the accumulation of empirical knowledge related to its historical, situational, or topical context in time and place, in addition to the personal experiences of the viewer. This argument is meant to call into question what Kant calls the “free harmony” of the faculties of imagination and cognition in his Critique of Judgement. [3] I will posit that the imagination is bound to personal experience; and empirical knowledge is necessary for the aesthetic appreciation of a work of art.[4] One could argue that there is an intrinsic a priori faculty that is employed by the human mind that allows for an intuitive aesthetic judgement of art without any empirical knowledge concerning the context of the art (or a posteriori knowledge). I am concerned with the enhancement of the aesthetic appreciation of art and how this is elicited in the observer, and not in the aesthetic evaluation of beauty in nature or the sublime. Given that Western art has changed so dramatically since Kant theorized the aesthetic judgement of beauty in 1790, there is a need to redefine what constitutes aesthetic judgement. In the future I wish to examine further the limitations of Kant’s theory on aesthetic judgement, and posit that Western ideals of beauty are in fact unobservant of cross-cultural aesthetics. I would argue that aesthetics are wholly dependent upon a posteriori knowledge (experience) and that there is little in the way of a common denominator in aesthetics save for the electro-chemical function of the human brain. However, due to the scope of this essay, I will be dealing only with Kant’s idea of “free harmony” of the faculties. In the first section, I will deal with the faculty of understanding—specifically the observers' understanding of the social context of the work itself, drawing on responses from the interviews I had with members of group tours given at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Group members were asked how information on the museum’s collection enhanced their experience of art, what kind of emotional response was invoked by individual pieces in the collection, and what piece was most interesting, or memorable to them. I will divide this first portion into three sections: historical context, situational context, and topical context.[5] In analyzing this data, I will draw upon Howard S. Becker’s theory of social construction, where concepts are acquired socially and then employed willfully. In the second portion of this essay, I will deal with the faculty of imagination, and posit that it is related to the personal experiences of the viewer drawing upon the theoretical concepts of Charles Horton Cooley (specifically the internal dialog of the imagination for the formulation of insight).
What constitutes as fine art has expanded explosively since Kant's theory of aesthetic judgement to include works ranging from Duchamp’s readymade--calling into question what constitutes as an artistic medium--to Jackson Pollock’s highly unconventional technique utilizing paints intended for commercial purposes. Since the late eighteenth century, major cultural events have shaped the social world and with it, our concept of fine art. In order to understand why these works of art are important, one must understand the contextual concepts (historical, situational, or topical) that served as a backdrop for their production. To put it quite bluntly, this is why some people say, “I don’t get it,” and why others elevate works of art into the upper echelon of the priceless masterpiece. However, I will argue that once the viewer employs these contextual conceptions, it allows for the appreciation of works of art that are not so easily appreciated aesthetically. To support my argument, I rely on Harold S. Becker’s theory of social construction:
…individuals who come in contact with a given object may respond to it at first in a great variety of ways. If a stable form of new behavior toward the object is to emerge, a transformation of meanings must occur, in which the person develops a new conception of the nature of the object. This happens in a series of communicative acts in which others point out new aspects of his experience to him, present him with new interpretations of events, and help him achieve a new conceptual organization of his world, without which the new behavior is not possible. Persons who do not achieve the proper kind of conceptualization are unable to engage in the given behavior and turn off in the direction of some other relationship to the object of activity.[6]
fig. 1
Art appreciation is enhanced by (a.) acquiring knowledge of the historical, situational, or topical context of the work, and (b.) its personal relation to the observer. This appreciation is dependent upon empirical truths either available to the observer topically, or acquired through conversational or literature-based knowledge. Data was collected through observation of guided tours of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s collection, and follow-up interviews with members of the tour groups. This theory calls into question Kant’s theory of aesthetic judgement, where “free harmony” of the faculties is thought to rely on a priori knowledge, and is not bound to experience or empirical facts.[1]
Introduction
Most visual art is non-propositional, meaning it conveys emotion, attitudes, and interests about the world without asserting truth linguistically.[2] Yet, the original emotion, attitudes, and interests that it conveys belong initially to the artist. Beyond that, it is dependent upon an audience to judge the piece aesthetically. I will posit that this aesthetic evaluation is enhanced by the accumulation of empirical knowledge related to its historical, situational, or topical context in time and place, in addition to the personal experiences of the viewer. This argument is meant to call into question what Kant calls the “free harmony” of the faculties of imagination and cognition in his Critique of Judgement. [3] I will posit that the imagination is bound to personal experience; and empirical knowledge is necessary for the aesthetic appreciation of a work of art.[4] One could argue that there is an intrinsic a priori faculty that is employed by the human mind that allows for an intuitive aesthetic judgement of art without any empirical knowledge concerning the context of the art (or a posteriori knowledge). I am concerned with the enhancement of the aesthetic appreciation of art and how this is elicited in the observer, and not in the aesthetic evaluation of beauty in nature or the sublime. Given that Western art has changed so dramatically since Kant theorized the aesthetic judgement of beauty in 1790, there is a need to redefine what constitutes aesthetic judgement. In the future I wish to examine further the limitations of Kant’s theory on aesthetic judgement, and posit that Western ideals of beauty are in fact unobservant of cross-cultural aesthetics. I would argue that aesthetics are wholly dependent upon a posteriori knowledge (experience) and that there is little in the way of a common denominator in aesthetics save for the electro-chemical function of the human brain. However, due to the scope of this essay, I will be dealing only with Kant’s idea of “free harmony” of the faculties. In the first section, I will deal with the faculty of understanding—specifically the observers' understanding of the social context of the work itself, drawing on responses from the interviews I had with members of group tours given at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Group members were asked how information on the museum’s collection enhanced their experience of art, what kind of emotional response was invoked by individual pieces in the collection, and what piece was most interesting, or memorable to them. I will divide this first portion into three sections: historical context, situational context, and topical context.[5] In analyzing this data, I will draw upon Howard S. Becker’s theory of social construction, where concepts are acquired socially and then employed willfully. In the second portion of this essay, I will deal with the faculty of imagination, and posit that it is related to the personal experiences of the viewer drawing upon the theoretical concepts of Charles Horton Cooley (specifically the internal dialog of the imagination for the formulation of insight).
Employing Historical, Situational, and Topical Contexts
What constitutes as fine art has expanded explosively since Kant's theory of aesthetic judgement to include works ranging from Duchamp’s readymade--calling into question what constitutes as an artistic medium--to Jackson Pollock’s highly unconventional technique utilizing paints intended for commercial purposes. Since the late eighteenth century, major cultural events have shaped the social world and with it, our concept of fine art. In order to understand why these works of art are important, one must understand the contextual concepts (historical, situational, or topical) that served as a backdrop for their production. To put it quite bluntly, this is why some people say, “I don’t get it,” and why others elevate works of art into the upper echelon of the priceless masterpiece. However, I will argue that once the viewer employs these contextual conceptions, it allows for the appreciation of works of art that are not so easily appreciated aesthetically. To support my argument, I rely on Harold S. Becker’s theory of social construction:
…individuals who come in contact with a given object may respond to it at first in a great variety of ways. If a stable form of new behavior toward the object is to emerge, a transformation of meanings must occur, in which the person develops a new conception of the nature of the object. This happens in a series of communicative acts in which others point out new aspects of his experience to him, present him with new interpretations of events, and help him achieve a new conceptual organization of his world, without which the new behavior is not possible. Persons who do not achieve the proper kind of conceptualization are unable to engage in the given behavior and turn off in the direction of some other relationship to the object of activity.[6]
fig. 1
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 Battle of the U.S.S. “Kearsarge” and the C.S.S. “Alabama”, 1846 (fig 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 Portraits of Hiram Charles and Elizabeth Brown Montier, 1841 (fig 2).
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.”
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.
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 Portraits of Hiram Charles and Elizabeth Brown Montier, 1841 (fig 2).
fig. 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.
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.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)