“Ars longa, vita brevis,” in other words, “non omnis moriar”--such is the leitmotif of the present entry. But it is not its sole subject.
Continuing our discussion of art, a legitimate question arises, as to what qualifies art to become the subject of a philosophical discourse. The obvious answer in the affirmative can be promptly accepted (and in so doing, this whole matter quickly taken out of our way) on the unimpeachable authority of Aristotle, who identifies art with knowledge (and knowledge is, of course, a rightful subject of classical philosophy), in the following line from his Metaphysics: "Art is a higher type of knowledge than experience." To which I might add that art is not only knowledge, but it is also a unique perception of reality. It is to this latter quality of art that Oscar Wilde is addressing himself in the following line from The Decay of Lying: “No great artist sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.” Two valuable points are made here: one, that art is a perception, the other, that this perception is substantially different from nature’s original design. At which point we may bring in Aristotle again, with this interesting line from Physics: “In part, art completes what nature cannot elaborate; and in part, it imitates nature.” Which finally takes us from art as perception to art as creation.
One of Webster’s Dictionary's principal definitions of art is "creative work generally," which again raises the question of definitions. In other words, how do we define creativity?
Quoting Aristotle yet again, "All art consists in bringing something into existence." (From his Nicomachean Ethics, vi.) But art is never a copycat of nature, even if Aristotle talks about imitating nature. Essentially, it needs to be clarified that although all art is always "bringing something into existence," the act of bringing something into existence does not art make. The act of conception, for instance (followed by childbirth), is not a labor of art, and not even an imitation of nature, but it is an act of nature herself working through us as merely her medium. The artist is a creator, but nature is not (whenever we admire the artistry of nature, it is an evidence of our personal artistic perception of her, rather than her own artistry), that’s why Schopenhauer calls the artist “grandchild of God,” bypassing Mother Nature in the artist’s creative heredity.
Another definition of art in Webster’s Dictionary is more prosaic and down-to-earth: Art is "the disposition or modification of things by human skill, to answer the purpose intended. In this sense, art stands opposed to nature." The use of the word ‘art’ in the opening sentence of Hobbes’s Leviathan is along the lines of this definition. Remember?--- "Nature (the art whereby God has made and governs the world) is by the art of man imitated, so that it can make an artificial animal." (Apparently, the ‘materialistically-minded’ Hobbes gives much more credit to God’s skill than the illustrious classic American dictionary is ready to give Him!)
But, joking aside, we have already registered such aspects of art as knowledge, perception, creativity, skill, and imitation. What remains is the powerful aspect of self-expression, which seems obvious, once we have mentioned it, but, surprisingly, its explicit formulation is distinctly characteristic of the great Russian school of thinking, as evidenced here by these two examples:
Modest Mussorgsky, in his 1880 autobiographical sketch, says that "art is not an end in itself, but a means of addressing humanity," which is another way of expressing self-expression. Leo Tolstoy, in his 1898 exercise in pontification, under the title What is Art? says the following: “Art is a human activity consisting in that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.”
We could go on with this, finding more new nuances in the expression of the meaning of art, but the main purpose of this entry’s enumeration of its attributes has been served. Art is a legitimate subject of interest for a philosophical inquiry, but I intend to go even further, by pointing out that it is no less important than any of the traditional subdivisions of philosophy, and ought to be included among them. Then, perhaps, we may find ourselves in a better position to distinguish between authentic art and fake art, which problem has been plaguing aesthetics ever since "freedom of expression" has become the guardian angel of pornographers and conmen.
In conclusion of this entry, I might add that Nietzsche’s Latin pearl “Fiat veritas, pereat vita” may find an amusing new interpretation, if paraphrased as Erit ars, peribit vita, to mean what our familiar Latin dictum of Greek (Hippocratic) origin exactly says in “Ars longa, vita brevis!”
Continuing our discussion of art, a legitimate question arises, as to what qualifies art to become the subject of a philosophical discourse. The obvious answer in the affirmative can be promptly accepted (and in so doing, this whole matter quickly taken out of our way) on the unimpeachable authority of Aristotle, who identifies art with knowledge (and knowledge is, of course, a rightful subject of classical philosophy), in the following line from his Metaphysics: "Art is a higher type of knowledge than experience." To which I might add that art is not only knowledge, but it is also a unique perception of reality. It is to this latter quality of art that Oscar Wilde is addressing himself in the following line from The Decay of Lying: “No great artist sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.” Two valuable points are made here: one, that art is a perception, the other, that this perception is substantially different from nature’s original design. At which point we may bring in Aristotle again, with this interesting line from Physics: “In part, art completes what nature cannot elaborate; and in part, it imitates nature.” Which finally takes us from art as perception to art as creation.
One of Webster’s Dictionary's principal definitions of art is "creative work generally," which again raises the question of definitions. In other words, how do we define creativity?
Quoting Aristotle yet again, "All art consists in bringing something into existence." (From his Nicomachean Ethics, vi.) But art is never a copycat of nature, even if Aristotle talks about imitating nature. Essentially, it needs to be clarified that although all art is always "bringing something into existence," the act of bringing something into existence does not art make. The act of conception, for instance (followed by childbirth), is not a labor of art, and not even an imitation of nature, but it is an act of nature herself working through us as merely her medium. The artist is a creator, but nature is not (whenever we admire the artistry of nature, it is an evidence of our personal artistic perception of her, rather than her own artistry), that’s why Schopenhauer calls the artist “grandchild of God,” bypassing Mother Nature in the artist’s creative heredity.
Another definition of art in Webster’s Dictionary is more prosaic and down-to-earth: Art is "the disposition or modification of things by human skill, to answer the purpose intended. In this sense, art stands opposed to nature." The use of the word ‘art’ in the opening sentence of Hobbes’s Leviathan is along the lines of this definition. Remember?--- "Nature (the art whereby God has made and governs the world) is by the art of man imitated, so that it can make an artificial animal." (Apparently, the ‘materialistically-minded’ Hobbes gives much more credit to God’s skill than the illustrious classic American dictionary is ready to give Him!)
But, joking aside, we have already registered such aspects of art as knowledge, perception, creativity, skill, and imitation. What remains is the powerful aspect of self-expression, which seems obvious, once we have mentioned it, but, surprisingly, its explicit formulation is distinctly characteristic of the great Russian school of thinking, as evidenced here by these two examples:
Modest Mussorgsky, in his 1880 autobiographical sketch, says that "art is not an end in itself, but a means of addressing humanity," which is another way of expressing self-expression. Leo Tolstoy, in his 1898 exercise in pontification, under the title What is Art? says the following: “Art is a human activity consisting in that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.”
We could go on with this, finding more new nuances in the expression of the meaning of art, but the main purpose of this entry’s enumeration of its attributes has been served. Art is a legitimate subject of interest for a philosophical inquiry, but I intend to go even further, by pointing out that it is no less important than any of the traditional subdivisions of philosophy, and ought to be included among them. Then, perhaps, we may find ourselves in a better position to distinguish between authentic art and fake art, which problem has been plaguing aesthetics ever since "freedom of expression" has become the guardian angel of pornographers and conmen.
In conclusion of this entry, I might add that Nietzsche’s Latin pearl “Fiat veritas, pereat vita” may find an amusing new interpretation, if paraphrased as Erit ars, peribit vita, to mean what our familiar Latin dictum of Greek (Hippocratic) origin exactly says in “Ars longa, vita brevis!”
No comments:
Post a Comment