philosophy of art

« Carrier's search for a universal aesthetic | Main | Reply to Jerome Langguth »

Sunday, February 25, 2007

"One thing happeneth to them all": On the alleged universality of art

Posted by Robert Kraut on February 25, 2007 at 01:30 PM | Permalink

by Robert Kraut

I appreciate George J. Leonard's recent posting on David Carrier's quest for "a kind of international pan-aesthetic." Unfortunately I am not familiar with Richard Kuhns' work, or with much of the other material cited by Leonard; doubtless I miss key background assumptions. Nevertheless, his posting is provocative and merits a reaction, even if an uninformed one.

Clive Bell tells us that "It is the mark of great art that its appeal is universal and eternal. Significant form stands charged with the power to provoke aesthetic emotion in anyone capable of feeling it." [Art, p.33] Over the years I've found that most of my introductory aesthetics students reject this claim of "universality": they are more struck by differences than similarities among artworks of different cultures and ages. But the logic of the situation is notoriously complex: with sufficient cleverness, it is always possible to find a set of invariants uniting any given class of data. The question is whether those invariants are non-trivial, and whether they are of importance to someone interested in "the essence" of art. I am no anthropologist; certainly I have not traveled to the extent that George J. has; but any Brooklyn boy transported to the Midwest (for example) quickly discovers that what qualifies as humor in one place often prompts stunned silence in another. As with humor, so with art: just as a substantive, culture-transcendent sphere of "the humorous" is doubtful, so is the sort of "universal aesthetic" envisaged by George J.  Moreover: even if there exist artworks with "universal and eternal" appeal, it is not clear (to me) why such features should be valorized as essential to art.

Of course, there is a context-sensitive psychological story to tell about why people in different communities find humor where they do: but it isn't clear that such a story posits any particular bit of narrative that everyone would find funny. I can't even tell jokes to my wife's parents; it doesn't work. Playing avant-garde jazz to country-western audiences is no more successful; they don't get it. Where is the touted "pan aesthetic"? 

None of this is surprising, and I'm probably missing George J's point. His claim is that watching children from different cultures at play encourages the idea that a certain "Ur-aesthetic" is present, "out there in those playgrounds." Granted: there is activity in the playgrounds that points toward a human capacity to "dig under" the specifics of cultural convention and local contingent norms.  After all, people are people. What is not clear to me is the basis, if any, for assimilating these "trans-cultural" factors to the essence of art, and for seeking to build a "universal aesthetic" upon them.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345159b669e200d8351f36c769e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "One thing happeneth to them all": On the alleged universality of art:

Comments

Posted by: jerome langguth | Feb 28, 2007 6:55:06 AM :

Anecdotally, I have had a great deal of success over the last four years with avant-garde jazz workshops (5 workshops total) staged for high school juniors in Kentucky, and for students at the college where I teach. The musical taste of my students at the outset almost never includes avant-garde jazz (or any jazz), and very frequently includes country. After the workshops, the majority of the students report greatly enjoying the performances. Some end up being very enthusiastic, and I am routinely stopped by students in the hallway asking when another workshop is scheduled to take place. I have often wondered exactly what is going on here, as I would have expected the “don’t get it” response to be prevalent. I think that the discussion here points to a possible answer. The performers at the workshops invariably bring to the music a sense of play, of exploration, and of passionate dedication to their art. The students sense this and are as a result more “open” to the novelty of the music than they would ordinarily be. In short, my musician friends bring a sense of the playground to their art. Perhaps these conditions are only rarely present in our art-events today. Many artists themselves seem to treat their art as an “inside joke”, or to assume that the uninitiated just wouldn’t understand.

So maybe what is universal is not some set of features that art-objects or experiences might or might not have in common, but the human capacity to become enthusiastic about opening oneself to the pleasures of the new—given that conditions are right. And, were we to pay attention, the right conditions might very well be revealed to us on the playgrounds of the world.

Posted by: George J. Leonard | Feb 28, 2007 2:33:27 PM :

Dear Robert,
Thanks for the fascinating and pertinent reply which I saw this morning, rushing out the door to class. Let me mull it over! Yes, I probably didn't explain Kuhns as much as I should have. I think you'll like it.
George

Posted by: George J. Leonard | Mar 1, 2007 3:07:33 AM :

Let me reply to Robert's and Jerome's responses (and thank them) by explaining more about Dick Kuhns's sort of work in The Psychoanalytic Theory of Art, a work with such an original point of attack it gives one ideas for years afterward. But first let me say I certainly like the way you both work, philosophizing your life experiences. Robert makes a strong point about a joke in Brooklyn not always being a joke in the Mid West. I certainly don't agree with Clive Bell, and it's not what I'm saying. I value Jerome's insight that the best players he works with bring to their music "a sense of the playground" in the original childhood sense. They're not importing it, I'd say. They recapture some of the original playground excitement. Interesting insight. Can an artist get back to art's roots in play?
Richard Kuhns is trying to discover, in human activity, a common root from which all the arts spring; though by the time we encounter the arts in the Midwest and Brooklyn they've grown far apart. Is there a common origin? Building on the work of certain psychologists who say that to "play" with dolls and other objects is apparently universal, Kuhns locates the Ur-form of art in the tiny dramas extremely young children create. Kuhns notices that the children commonly repeat recent experiences in these dramas, as ways of "metabolizing" them, re-experiencing them to learn from them. I noticed that my son used trains for small dramas in which he could relive simple crises almost before he had speech-- "I go too fast and now I fall down. But I'm okay." He would make his train do that over and over. I saw Beijingese children too young to have learned from their cultures doing just the same. We use art to call up an experience and safely relive it, watching it this time from a distance at our leisure; like "instant replay" making the game clearer. If art has a common root in early childhood behavior, there is a chance, then, that some very simple common aesthetic could be found. Thank you both for the close reading. Best, George. PS I don't know why the computer calls me George J.! Just George is fine.

Posted by: David McCullough | Apr 9, 2007 6:48:31 PM :

Universal aesthetic? Isn't there obviously one based on the universality* of our system of perception? Whether that slops over into the judgement of art or beauty is an entirely different question. Let's suppose that we talked for a long time and finally agreed that Croce was largely correct if we subtract the idealism. Maybe nowadays we would combine what he called Expression and Intuition as the single process of representation--or whatever name you choose for the brain process of constructing our reality. If there is anything to that theory, it would be because it's universal, because people are built that way.

Does anyone disagree that aesthetics in that sense, the sense in which Kant wrote of aesthetic, is universal? Having developed an aesthetic theory, one could then go on to find applications--applied aesthetics. (Kant did that in the Critique of Judgement. Not however, to employ aesthetic theory as a useful tool for investigating the world, but as a way to fill an empty spot in the architecture of his system.) Take Crocean Expressionism. Can it be applied across the board to the creation of art works?

I think so, but case would have to be argued for each culture and medium. It seems obvious to people who play jazz, less so for people who are aesthetes but don't create art, and maybe lesser so for artists who have a standoffish relation to their own work and consider themselves media, like the Russian icon artist Andre Rublev depicted in the movie of that name.

But to see the world in a given moment in a given way, to materialize that perception (intuition, represntation) so that others can feel it the same way, is that not a good candidate for the universal common denominator in the creation and enjoyment of art?

David McCullough
(not the big guy)

*quasi-universality: there are all kinds of outliers in the spectrum of perceptual equipment, studied by Oliver Sacks such people.

Posted by: Derek Allan | Apr 9, 2007 8:12:22 PM :

David McCullough comments: ‘But to see the world in a given moment in a given way, to materialize that perception (intuition, representation) so that others can feel it the same way, is that not a good candidate for the universal common denominator in the creation and enjoyment of art?’

I'm not sure how we would know that others feel the ‘materialisation’ of the world in the same way. But, more fundamentally, what would ‘the world’ mean in this context? This question is not only addressed to David. I repeatedly encounter the terms 'world', 'reality', 'experience' etc in the philosophy of art but rarely, if ever, any attempt to define what they mean in the context of art. The question, it seems to me, is both fundamental and inescapable.

Posted by: Bing | May 5, 2007 3:32:38 AM :

Sir
I am a Chinese student. I need an article . The name of the article is Ming and Qing Paitings . Its author is Arthur Danto . Could you do me a faver ?
My e-mail : bingzh1994@yahoo.com.cn
Thank you !

Posted by: A.T. | Jun 7, 2007 9:15:35 AM :

What is not clear to me is the basis, if any, for assimilating these "trans-cultural" factors to the essence of art, and for seeking to build a "universal aesthetic" upon them.

Nice blog. Forget about essence. You don't need to build a universal aesthetic. Iranian tapestries are different than Baroque religious canvases.

Posted by: Rich | Jun 13, 2007 1:11:34 AM :

I always found Dewey's idea of the aesthetic experience being generated by a play of balance and tension as an interesting starting point for the universality of Art. What generates balance and tension via meaning would be culturally dependent, but you could make a case for certain formal aspects of balance and tension being hard wired into cognition. I'm a teacher of design/visual communication and I find this a helpful starting point with my students.

I'd be very interested in others thoughts on Dewey's ideas.

BTW this is my first visit... wonderful site.

Posted by: Rich | Jun 13, 2007 1:41:19 AM :

Just noticed the time stamps... I'll keep an eye out for the blog starting up again.

Posted by: Derek Allan | Jun 13, 2007 5:47:33 AM :

Is there really any conceivable visual image, series of words or musical notes, that one could confidently argue did not display some form of 'balance and tension'? The ideas seem to me so vague and elastic - and subjective - that one could ascribe them to virtually anything. (Even for example to this comment.)

Posted by: Sid Leavitt | Aug 1, 2007 2:32:09 AM :

To Whom It May Concern:

My compliments on your website, which I found through the weblog Philosophy Talk. I administer a website, Readersandwritersblog.com, that promotes good writing, and I'd like to add a link to your site on our blogroll.

Our site, actually a combination website-weblog, gives frustrated writers a place to publish their nonfiction, fiction or poetry of any length at no cost in a separate 'Works' section and gives readers a place to comment on that work either in that section or on the blog. We also seek out well-written sites and post them on our blogroll.

When we add a site to our blogroll, I write a post about that site explaining what I like about it, particularly about the quality of the writing. I'm sure the writing on your site has drawn plenty of compliments, but please add mine to them.

Although our site is fairly new, it might bring a few new readers to yours.

If you will email me, I'd like to send you a tentative version of what the entry about your site will say. That way, you can let me know if I've made any factual or contextual errors. Otherwise, I plan the post and the blogroll addition for Aug. 16.

Until then, best regards.

Sid Leavitt

Posted by: Ralf Heinritz | Aug 2, 2007 3:04:09 AM :

All humans no animals speak, have a language, but that is about all there is to the idea of an universal language (Chomsky is the only linguist known who doesn`t know languages).

The first generation of british Japanologists, true giants of the field with a long residency in the country couldn`t stomach Japanese music.

Posted by: Jared | Aug 8, 2007 11:08:04 AM :

"Where is the touted "pan aesthetic"?"
-Have you tried asking artists? Sure, specialists or folk audiences have strong biases towards what is and isn't good art; but in my (young) experience with and among artists, it is clear that those with an interest in creativity as opposed to mere entertainment have much broader appreciation for what is unfamiliar.

David McCullough-
Hat tip for mentioning a Tarkovsky film! I might amend my comment above by noting that creation with a view towards a product is more strenuous than "art por l'art". Looking at two film directors that hated each other's work, Ingmar Bergman and Jean-Luc Godard, we can see how self-critical they were about their own productions. But looking at the inclusiveness of Quentin Tarantino or Stan Brakhage, we find a more relaxed, self-accepting attitude.

Oh, and another hat-tip for mentioning Croce!
-Jared

Posted by: i am | Aug 10, 2007 3:21:47 PM :

Hey! look what i've just found in the network http://www.scanmessenger.com to find out who deleted you from MSN without noticing it.

Posted by: anonrobt | Sep 3, 2007 2:02:32 PM :

perhaps your problem in seeking this universal of aesthetics lies in the erroneous presumption of relativism with regards to valuating humans, and emotions as if a means of cognition or gaining of knowledge... if you'd read the first four chapters of Romantic Manifesto [Rand], you would find a more proper and reality-oriented view to grasping the essence of the universal of aesthetics.....

Posted by: Skannof | Nov 8, 2007 11:16:21 AM :

I believe that there is no "universal aesthetic" when it comes to art but instead that just most of our minds are capable of understanding the same concepts. Ideas can be accepted universally because they are based on logic, but aesthetics are cultural based. As art is a creation of man, as different as man is is his art. The idea of the "universal aesthetic" may seem plausible because of this concept which most people think unconsciously-- The art that is appreciated by the most amount of people is generally the best art. I think people pick up this concept because generally when browsing through famous art we can find one that speaks to us fairly quickly, whereas when we browse unknown or not very well-known artworks we are less likely to find any meaningful artwork (personally or otherwise) without looking very extensively.

So, from this, people inevitably draw from their unconscious the notion of a universal aesthetic which only the greatest art touches upon. However, it cannot be a universal aesthetic which these artists touch upon, because every culture has a very different sense of what is pleasing to the senses and those aesthetics are imbedded in people from very young. Cultures by nature will differ greatly, as it is only in the natural processes of survival of the fittest and natural selection for a species to separate (which we did until we ran out of room) and evolve into two different species based on their differing environments. We did not separate into different species but having separate cultures and races were our first steps towards there. Also, taking into consideration all six billion people on the earth, we can imagine what sort of gene pool we'd be looking at. People are evolved based on their own family line. The randomness and extreme variability that occurs when a man and a woman's DNA combine for their children (why no two non-twins will ever be identical) by logic has to have occurred in a similar way with the human race, except because we're talking about A LOT more than two DNA samples and a couple of babies, we have to imagine the possible variability of that gene pool, just to understand on a real level how much we can differ from another .

The other problem that this theory of the "universal aesthetic" presents is that people's perceptions of things are changed so greatly by personal experience and psychological conflicts (emotional repression, etc.) that it makes a universal aesthetic impossible. What does occur though, when a particular work of art is noted as great, is the application of an idea, a concept. This concept is beauty. Beauty is usually not considered measurable, but I believe that it is. Not only does our unconscious mind think about the concept of beauty in it of itself through and through, but also how every other idea/memory we've ever had connects (if at all) to the concept of beauty. Not all ideas or memories we've had can relate to every other idea, but we can only imagine how many connections our unconscious mind can successfully make. To understand the unconscious mind we must think like the unconscious mind and draw from everything we know. After thinking about it for a long time i decided there are THREE specific things that play a part in our recognition and determination of the level of beauty in any particular subject. For our purposes I will examine these three ideas from the artists point of view, although its application is infinite. In order for us to apply the concept of beauty we must first understand that every work of art is its own sort of machine that runs on a system of individual aspects. A photograph or painting is made up of a system of colors and images; a song is based on a system of notes and sounds. When we can think about art objectively in this way, we can more easily think about beauty as our unconscious mind would ---or one way that the unconscious looks at beauty-- limited by language, intelligence, etc. The three things that determine something's beauty are:

1. EFFICIENCY

- How well structured is my work?

-Is it in a media that is accessible to the audience?

-How accessible is the art itself? If your work involves time duration how long does it take to view/read/listen?

-Is it in a media that is understood by the audience-- an important side note-- in order for art to be fully appreciated the spectator needs to have a full understanding of how it is meant to be perceived (think like those magic 3D pictures where you change your focus and see hidden images... without knowing how to look at them you can't see the whole picture)

-Is there enough repetition of ideas for people to grasp concepts?

-Are there enough ideas to interest the audience? Do you think your ideas are interesting?

-How well do the systems you use draw out the desired emotions/ideas from the audience?

-Is it a complete work? If tension is built in the work does it come to a resolution?

2. ORIGINALITY

-Are the individual images and/or sounds original, and distinctly unique from anything else?

-Are the images and/or sounds put together in a way that is distinctly unique from anything else?

-What do YOU have to bring to the table? Do you bring up new concepts or ideas? Do you bring up personal views towards common concepts or ideas? Do you make connections that no one (that you know) has made already? Do you illustrate connections that people have already made in an original way that is distinctly unique from anything else?

3. INTRICACY -- this is the juicy one. How intricate not only an individual system in a work of art is, but how intricately and seamlessly systems work together usually indicate a great amount of the beauty in a work or art. When we look at a more intricate and effective work of art, for example a Shakespeare play, and we note repetition of motifs, character behavior, and themes throughout, we see how Shakespeare uses both the systems of action and language to illustrate symbols, themes, etc. and how every time something is repeated it is shown in another way, through another character, or often in relation to another idea that was already brought up. We can see how in this way-- because our unconscious mind connects things -- art can reflect the unconscious mind. When a spectator experiences an idea or theme connecting to other ideas or themes in the work they recognize a beauty of intricacy unconsciously, because not only are they satisfied from learning and understanding the individual ideas and the connections they share, but you're also taking into consideration when and how it is all expressed, and just perceiving the intricacy of the work will entertain your intellect in the same way that a math proof does. MAKE SURE THAT THE INTRICACY OF YOUR WORK EMPHASIZES WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, a work should never just be INTRICATE, it has to be intricate in a way that adds to your work by emphasizing something, as opposed to confusing the spectator when a work is very intricate for no reason.

So if everyone in the world thought about the same object, and used these three ideas to try to measure its beauty, not only would everyone have a much better understanding of the object and their personal intuitive notions towards it, but generally most people would point out the same or similar things because how efficient an object is how unique it is and how intricate it is are all objective questions that point out aspects which are harder to argue over or even to differ in opinion (like with an aesthetic).

In the modern world, we have to mix genres and media to keep spectators interested. By doing that though, the art will be more original, intricate, and efficient right off the bat. The universal aesthetic if anything is our concept of beauty. What is amazing is that we can FEEL when something is more beautiful than something else even if we don't put words to "why?" right away. But definitely trying to achieve great beauty or even trying to draw from a "universal aesthetic" is important for us, because when people think about ideas in the same way those people are at peace as long as there talking about that thing right? So the more art that can be widely appreciated, especially art with peaceful ideas, the more everyone can think alike (and the more peace in the world, etc.)

I don't know if you'll read this, but hopefully your notified when someone posts here, but if you do I'd really like some feedback.
Email me:

Skannof@csf.edu

Posted by: Skannof | Nov 8, 2007 11:17:18 AM :

I believe that there is no "universal aesthetic" when it comes to art but instead that just most of our minds are capable of understanding the same concepts. Ideas can be accepted universally because they are based on logic, but aesthetics are cultural based. As art is a creation of man, as different as man is is his art. The idea of the "universal aesthetic" may seem plausible because of this concept which most people think unconsciously-- The art that is appreciated by the most amount of people is generally the best art. I think people pick up this concept because generally when browsing through famous art we can find one that speaks to us fairly quickly, whereas when we browse unknown or not very well-known artworks we are less likely to find any meaningful artwork (personally or otherwise) without looking very extensively.

So, from this, people inevitably draw from their unconscious the notion of a universal aesthetic which only the greatest art touches upon. However, it cannot be a universal aesthetic which these artists touch upon, because every culture has a very different sense of what is pleasing to the senses and those aesthetics are imbedded in people from very young. Cultures by nature will differ greatly, as it is only in the natural processes of survival of the fittest and natural selection for a species to separate (which we did until we ran out of room) and evolve into two different species based on their differing environments. We did not separate into different species but having separate cultures and races were our first steps towards there. Also, taking into consideration all six billion people on the earth, we can imagine what sort of gene pool we'd be looking at. People are evolved based on their own family line. The randomness and extreme variability that occurs when a man and a woman's DNA combine for their children (why no two non-twins will ever be identical) by logic has to have occurred in a similar way with the human race, except because we're talking about A LOT more than two DNA samples and a couple of babies, we have to imagine the possible variability of that gene pool, just to understand on a real level how much we can differ from another .

The other problem that this theory of the "universal aesthetic" presents is that people's perceptions of things are changed so greatly by personal experience and psychological conflicts (emotional repression, etc.) that it makes a universal aesthetic impossible. What does occur though, when a particular work of art is noted as great, is the application of an idea, a concept. This concept is beauty. Beauty is usually not considered measurable, but I believe that it is. Not only does our unconscious mind think about the concept of beauty in it of itself through and through, but also how every other idea/memory we've ever had connects (if at all) to the concept of beauty. Not all ideas or memories we've had can relate to every other idea, but we can only imagine how many connections our unconscious mind can successfully make. To understand the unconscious mind we must think like the unconscious mind and draw from everything we know. After thinking about it for a long time i decided there are THREE specific things that play a part in our recognition and determination of the level of beauty in any particular subject. For our purposes I will examine these three ideas from the artists point of view, although its application is infinite. In order for us to apply the concept of beauty we must first understand that every work of art is its own sort of machine that runs on a system of individual aspects. A photograph or painting is made up of a system of colors and images; a song is based on a system of notes and sounds. When we can think about art objectively in this way, we can more easily think about beauty as our unconscious mind would ---or one way that the unconscious looks at beauty-- limited by language, intelligence, etc. The three things that determine something's beauty are:

1. EFFICIENCY

- How well structured is my work?

-Is it in a media that is accessible to the audience?

-How accessible is the art itself? If your work involves time duration how long does it take to view/read/listen?

-Is it in a media that is understood by the audience-- an important side note-- in order for art to be fully appreciated the spectator needs to have a full understanding of how it is meant to be perceived (think like those magic 3D pictures where you change your focus and see hidden images... without knowing how to look at them you can't see the whole picture)

-Is there enough repetition of ideas for people to grasp concepts?

-Are there enough ideas to interest the audience? Do you think your ideas are interesting?

-How well do the systems you use draw out the desired emotions/ideas from the audience?

-Is it a complete work? If tension is built in the work does it come to a resolution?

2. ORIGINALITY

-Are the individual images and/or sounds original, and distinctly unique from anything else?

-Are the images and/or sounds put together in a way that is distinctly unique from anything else?

-What do YOU have to bring to the table? Do you bring up new concepts or ideas? Do you bring up personal views towards common concepts or ideas? Do you make connections that no one (that you know) has made already? Do you illustrate connections that people have already made in an original way that is distinctly unique from anything else?

3. INTRICACY -- this is the juicy one. How intricate not only an individual system in a work of art is, but how intricately and seamlessly systems work together usually indicate a great amount of the beauty in a work or art. When we look at a more intricate and effective work of art, for example a Shakespeare play, and we note repetition of motifs, character behavior, and themes throughout, we see how Shakespeare uses both the systems of action and language to illustrate symbols, themes, etc. and how every time something is repeated it is shown in another way, through another character, or often in relation to another idea that was already brought up. We can see how in this way-- because our unconscious mind connects things -- art can reflect the unconscious mind. When a spectator experiences an idea or theme connecting to other ideas or themes in the work they recognize a beauty of intricacy unconsciously, because not only are they satisfied from learning and understanding the individual ideas and the connections they share, but you're also taking into consideration when and how it is all expressed, and just perceiving the intricacy of the work will entertain your intellect in the same way that a math proof does. MAKE SURE THAT THE INTRICACY OF YOUR WORK EMPHASIZES WHAT'S ALREADY THERE, a work should never just be INTRICATE, it has to be intricate in a way that adds to your work by emphasizing something, as opposed to confusing the spectator when a work is very intricate for no reason.

So if everyone in the world thought about the same object, and used these three ideas to try to measure its beauty, not only would everyone have a much better understanding of the object and their personal intuitive notions towards it, but generally most people would point out the same or similar things because how efficient an object is how unique it is and how intricate it is are all objective questions that point out aspects which are harder to argue over or even to differ in opinion (like with an aesthetic).

In the modern world, we have to mix genres and media to keep spectators interested. By doing that though, the art will be more original, intricate, and efficient right off the bat. The universal aesthetic if anything is our concept of beauty. What is amazing is that we can FEEL when something is more beautiful than something else even if we don't put words to "why?" right away. But definitely trying to achieve great beauty or even trying to draw from a "universal aesthetic" is important for us, because when people think about ideas in the same way those people are at peace as long as there talking about that thing right? So the more art that can be widely appreciated, especially art with peaceful ideas, the more everyone can think alike (and the more peace in the world, etc.)

I don't know if you'll read this, but hopefully your notified when someone posts here, so if you do I'd really like some feedback.
Email me:

Skannof@csf.edu

Posted by: John | Apr 12, 2008 12:54:04 AM :

Perhaps/Maybe there is a Universal Aesthetic which is soft-wired into our brains and nervous systems.

These two references & the associated website argue, and demonstrate the case.

1. http://www.adidabiennale.org/curation/index.htm

2. http://global.adidam.org/books/transcendental-realism.html