Aesthetics and Philosophy: A Match Made in Heaven?

[Anarch]

Aesthetics and Philosophy: A Match Made in Heaven?
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue57/57steinbauer.htm

To introduce our art issue, Anja Steinbauer describes the troubled relationship between art and theory.

We might imagine aesthetics, the study of art and beauty, and philosophy as two unhappy partners in a failing relationship, coming to us seeking counselling. “You can’t give me anything”, aesthetics might complain, “you don’t help people appreciate art or beauty, you don’t make artists better at their creative activity. You have no contribution to make to the aesthetic experience whatsoever. I wish you’d simply get out of my life!” “You never listen to reason,” philosophy might grumble in reply, “You are just so messy, without principles. No universal truths to speak of.”

So what is the point of philosophical aesthetics? Why force aesthetics and philosophy together?

Scepticism about the merits and even the possibility of a philosophical aesthetics has been the subject of irreconcilable controversies among thinkers. It is by no means self-evident that problems of aesthetics should be an object of philosophy: many philosophers have held that issues relating to art and beauty cannot be the object of philosophical work. The rationalist thinkers simply denied aesthetics a place in their systems of thought, while positivist and neo-positivist thinkers argued that it could not be part of philosophical enquiry.

Although classical Greek philosophers commented about both art and beauty, they didn’t regard these problems as deserving a discipline of their own within philosophy. The classical tripartition of the subject into theoretical philosophy (what is there in the world and how can we know about it), practical philosophy (what should we do) and logic (how should we think) leaves open the question of where, if at all, aesthetics fits in. A philosophical aesthetics can be justified if it can be shown that it is meaningful to approach matters of an aesthetic nature philosophically. If this is the case, what are the implications for philosophy on the one hand, and for aesthetics on the other?

In recent times, a number of attempts have been made to determine the position of aesthetics. Thinkers such as Schelling and Nietzsche in their own ways sought to rehabilitate aesthetics to the degree that they even claimed this neglected field to be the highest form of philosophy. To most philosophers, however, reflections about aesthetics seem to be less important than epistemology or ethics. Even in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, it seems at first sight as if aesthetics came as an afterthought, made thematic only in the third of his famous three Critiques. However, it is in Kant’s system that aesthetics was for the first time assigned an autonomous place as a discipline within philosophy.

The importance of aesthetics to philosophy can, on reflection, not be denied: if philosophers want to explore what it means to be human, they must study this mysterious and significant ability of human beings to make aesthetic judgements. Why do we, for instance, claim that a sunset is beautiful? How do we decide this and what does it mean?

One of the most important questions asked by philosophical aesthetics – and one much discussed by contemporary thinkers – is that of the definition of ‘art’. The field is split between those who deny the possibility of there being necessary and sufficient conditions for something being a work of art, and the far greater group of those who have tried to lay down such conditions. The latter includes theories so diverse as Plato’s idea of art as representation (mimesis) and George Dickie’s institutional definition of art as “an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public.”

An interesting set of ideas about art, its context and its relation to philosophy comes from the American philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto. What makes something a work of art is not, says Danto, to be found by looking at its obvious properties. Danto believes that what “makes the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a Brillo box is a certain theory of art. It is the theory that takes it up into the world of art, and keeps it from collapsing into the real object which it is.”

What are we, however, doing when we ask about the difference between a Brillo box in a supermarket and a Brillo box in an art gallery? Danto’s answer is that we are asking a philosophical question. Art now prompts us to do philosophy. Much of art today is about boundary testing of ‘art’: “Can this object be considered art?”, “What is art?” Danto argues that art is doing philosophy; art is collapsing into philosophy.

G.W.F. Hegel in the nineteenth century declared that art would in future no longer be a predominant mode of expression for human beings. Danto seems to agree: Art has nothing left to do. It has run itself out, and has as its only project a philosophical one, the definition of art. And that would much better be left to the philosophers.

Aesthetics and philosophy have been through some rocky times together, and it is likely that the debates about the nature of their relationship, their relative importance and limitations will continue. The marriage as such may be saved simply because the two partners need each other too much, but are they ever going to be happy?

© Dr Anja Steinbauer 2006

[Sean]

A philosophical aesthetics can be justified if it can be shown that it is meaningful to approach matters of an aesthetic nature philosophically.

This will never happen in today's analytic philosophical climate for the reason that its method (relying on logical precision) places a barrier on anything that is vague. I have shown in the "Can..." thread how certain notions that are common to us in everyday experience cannot be reconciled with the philosophical method.

The importance of aesthetics to philosophy can, on reflection, not be denied: if philosophers want to explore what it means to be human, they must study this mysterious and significant ability of human beings to make aesthetic judgements.

The fact of the matter is is that philosophers don't care about what it is to "be human." They only care about their (mostly fictitious) systems. Human nature can only be found in the realm art, history, and the sciences. Philosophy in the analytic sense is relevent to reality insofar as it needs logical constructions. This woman is very naive to think otherwise.

An interesting set of ideas about art, its context and its relation to philosophy comes from the American philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto. What makes something a work of art is not, says Danto, to be found by looking at its obvious properties. Danto believes that what “makes the difference between a Brillo box and a work of art consisting of a Brillo box is a certain theory of art. It is the theory that takes it up into the world of art, and keeps it from collapsing into the real object which it is.”

What are we, however, doing when we ask about the difference between a Brillo box in a supermarket and a Brillo box in an art gallery? Danto’s answer is that we are asking a philosophical question. Art now prompts us to do philosophy. Much of art today is about boundary testing of ‘art’: “Can this object be considered art?”, “What is art?” Danto argues that art is doing philosophy; art is collapsing into philosophy.

Only if by philosophical one means intuition and inspection of the world, then I agree.

G.W.F. Hegel in the nineteenth century declared that art would in future no longer be a predominant mode of expression for human beings. Danto seems to agree: Art has nothing left to do. It has run itself out, and has as its only project a philosophical one, the definition of art. And that would much better be left to the philosophers.

It is not because we have "ran out of ideas" that art is stagnant. Such an assumption relies on a confused view of art. One doesn't, for instance, create something by finding all of the possible logical patterns and choosing the right ones--rather, it comes from instinct. We no longer have art because the vehicles which were previously responsible for producing it in the past have simply (for whatever reason: loss of spirit; blood getting weak) burned out.

[Anarch]

I disagree. First, what is art? An extension of life? Life itself? Life formed perfect, re-presented? I think so.

What kind of life? If life's tendency is to enhance and expand and fulfill its own potential, the achievement of success, victory, and its immortalisation into art is good art - even tragedy can be good art, when the great destruction and fall that defines tragedy is considered from the angle that the tragedy itself was not empty, but occured out of the attitude of 'life - this pursuit of victorious life - at any price'. What, then, is degenerate art? The formless, the irrational, the chaotic, disorganised, the spineless, the half-hearted. The emo.

[Sean]

I disagree. First, what is art? An extension of life? Life itself? Life formed perfect, re-presented? I think so.

What kind of life? If life's tendency is to enhance and expand and fulfill its own potential, the achievement of success, victory, and its immortalisation into art is good art - even tragedy can be good art, when the great destruction and fall that defines tragedy is considered from the angle that the tragedy itself was not empty, but occured out of the attitude of 'life - this pursuit of victorious life - at any price'. What, then, is degenerate art? The formless, the irrational, the chaotic, disorganised, the spineless, the half-hearted. The emo.

I disagree. Certain prerequisites are necessary in order to be able to "portray life." Art relies on the feelings of the artist, through which the content is filtered. There is necessarily something that is alluring in art--it is driven by the Dionysian instinct. The fact that some art, in certain time periods and places, is able to portray life more faithfully than others is due to the physiological superiority of peoples in said periods. The degenerate art that you describe is so, not because it's irrational, but because it's unable to produce harmony. Life today for most people is filled with chaotic and half-hearted emotions. They just go from one hollow pursuit to the next. It is no wonder that this is reflected in their art.

[Anarch]

I disagree. Certain prerequisites are necessary in order to be able to "portray life." Art relies on the feelings of the artist, through which the content is filtered.

Feelings? No, I disagree. Certainly, emotions are important, but where do you think emotions come from? Sitting in a dark box isn't going to bring on any emotions except, perhaps, despair from being unable to act, and so feel joy, the result of successful action. No - emotions are the result of having determined goals, and this means using one's rational mind to coordinate one's will with one's knowledge about reality. Better put: you feel like a faliure when you fail successively. You feel like a god when you've never been beaten. It's relatively simple.

There is necessarily something that is alluring in art--it is driven by the Dionysian instinct. The fact that some art, in certain time periods and places, is able to portray life more faithfully than others is due to the physiological superiority of peoples in said periods.

Excuse me? Can you provide evidence of this at all? Nietzsche's conception of art that he put foward in The Birth of Tragedy is bullshit, IMHO.

The degenerate art that you describe is so, not because it's irrational, but because it's unable to produce harmony. Life today for most people is filled with chaotic and half-hearted emotions. They just go from one hollow pursuit to the next. It is no wonder that this is reflected in their art.

Of course - and what do you think produces harmony, as you put it? Better still - one can paint a picture of a cube. Perfectly harmonious, yet not something to give one an aesthetic hard-on, so to speak. No - good art displays the heroic, that which produces admiration, what is worth aspiring to. Bad art displays the indifferent, the pathetic, the confused.

[Sean]

Feelings? No, I disagree. Certainly, emotions are important, but where do you think emotions come from? Sitting in a dark box isn't going to bring on any emotions except, perhaps, despair from being unable to act, and so feel joy, the result of successful action. No - emotions are the result of having determined goals, and this means using one's rational mind to coordinate one's will with one's knowledge about reality.

I never said that emotions alone are sufficient. Of course, one has an emotional reaction to an object. Art portrays things, but the way in which they are portrayed depends on how the artist himself sees them.

Better put: you feel like a faliure when you fail successively. You feel like a god when you've never been beaten. It's relatively simple.

What about tragedy? Most of the greatest works of literature--Homer, Shakespeare--are tragic in nature.

Excuse me? Can you provide evidence of this at all?

For the comment about physiological superiority? This can be seen on two levels: one being what it takes in order to create a work of art, and two, in examining the peoples who create great works. With regard to the first, it takes intuition (one must have strong drives) and intelligence (the ability to see things logically, which would work in refining the work of art. Both of these are undoubtedly either more or less advanced--one who is advanced in them is capable of creating.

With regard to the second it would be best to examine the Greeks, since Western art emerged among them. There is every reason to believe (along with the fact that they also started philosophy and science!) that the Greek, on average, was very clever, as well as being very fit. (And here I am not talking about his achievements, which alone would be enough to deem them intelligent--just look at the historians, for one thing). There are stories about Greek slaves who ended up running everything for their Roman masters. The Greek could also cheat you quite easily.

It should also be said that a given population has a set of traits that come are instantiated at a given rate. Why couldn't be that these artistic traits are also more prevelent in certain peoples during certain periods than in others, just as we say the same with intelligence? And all these traits do decline as well over time.

Nietzsche's conception of art that he put foward in The Birth of Tragedy is bullshit, IMHO.

And by the way, I have never read The Birth of Tragedy, but my position on art agrees with that of his in The Twilight of the Idols:

In this state one enriches everything out of one's own fullness: whatever one sees, whatever one wills, is seen swelled, taut, strong, overloaded with strength. A man in this state transforms things until they mirror his power—until they are reflections of his perfection. This having to transform into perfection is—art. Even everything that he is not yet, becomes for him an occasion of joy in himself; in art man enjoys himself as perfection.— It would be permissible to imagine an opposite state, a specific anti-artistry by instinct—a mode of being which would impoverish all things, making them thin and consumptive. And, as a matter of fact, history is rich in such anti-artists, in such people who are starved by life and must of necessity grab things, eat them out, and make them more meager. This is, for example, the case of the genuine Christian—of Pascal, for example: a Christian who would at the same time be an artist simply does not occur ... One should not be childish and object by naming Raphael or some homeopathic Christian of the nineteenth century: Raphael said Yes, Raphael did Yes; consequently, Raphael was no Christian ...

From "Expiditions of an Untimely Man," section 9.

Of course - and what do you think produces harmony, as you put it? Better still - one can paint a picture of a cube. Perfectly harmonious, yet not something to give one an aesthetic hard-on, so to speak.

Yes, this supports my position. But the desire to portray pictures as close to nature springs from the desire to see things clearly--one has a holistic worldview, which is missing today. One is able to connect the Heavenly Spheres to everything from heroic actions of men to the minute occurances of worms.

People today are rarely capable of anything more than a chain of disconnected ramblings--this is because they are incapable of seeing things in the way that people did in brighter times. What I'm saying is that there is something more that binds the parts together, and this has its origin in the artist.

No - good art displays the heroic, that which produces admiration, what is worth aspiring to. Bad art displays the indifferent, the pathetic, the confused.

I do not see how this is in any way incompatible with my position. For instance, something is not "heroic" in and of itself. Rather, it is humans who see certain actions as heroic. As Nietzsche would say, this would rise out of their health and will to power. It is more than just ideals though. Reading Homer, for instance, is like experiencing a stream of consciousness which connects the various aspects of its content. The goal of art is to portray life how one sees it: and that means everything from the most noble to the most mean and to the most trivial.

But why would you see the heroic as good in itself? Is there any reason to see it so that it not circular? If not, then this appreciation it has its root in you and not in actions.

What works of literature would you describe as good works of art?

[Sean]

For the comment about physiological superiority? This can be seen on two levels: one being what it takes in order to create a work of art, and two, in examining the peoples who create great works. With regard to the first, it takes intuition (one must have strong drives) and intelligence (the ability to see things logically, which would work in refining the work of art. Both of these are undoubtedly either more or less advanced--one who is advanced in them is capable of creating.

With regard to the second it would be best to examine the Greeks, since Western art emerged among them. There is every reason to believe (along with the fact that they also started philosophy and science!) that the Greek, on average, was very clever, as well as being very fit. (And here I am not talking about his achievements, which alone would be enough to deem them intelligent--just look at the historians, for one thing). There are stories about Greek slaves who ended up running everything for their Roman masters. The Greek could also cheat you quite easily.

It should also be said that a given population has a set of traits that come are instantiated at a given rate. Why couldn't be that these artistic traits are also more prevelent in certain peoples during certain periods than in others, just as we say the same with intelligence? And all these traits do decline as well over time.

I have also read a book in which the author alleged--in a book written, of course, around 1920--that we are to the Greeks as Negroes are to us. I see every reason to believe this.

[Anarch]

I never said that emotions alone are sufficient. Of course, one has an emotional reaction to an object. Art portrays things, but the way in which they are portrayed depends on how the artist himself sees them.

Of course. Art is the field of human activity in which man's highest values determine the recreation of reality. That said, I disagree with your emphasis on emotions - emotions are fundamentally derivatives of the act of evaluating and determining goals.

What about tragedy? Most of the greatest works of literature--Homer, Shakespeare--are tragic in nature.

I'm aware of this. I have covered tragedy above ;)

For the comment about physiological superiority? This can be seen on two levels: one being what it takes in order to create a work of art, and two, in examining the peoples who create great works. With regard to the first, it takes intuition (one must have strong drives) and intelligence (the ability to see things logically, which would work in refining the work of art. Both of these are undoubtedly either more or less advanced--one who is advanced in them is capable of creating.

I disagree that 'strong drives' effects it at all. Most people - including a great many calling themselves Christians - have happiness as their primary goal. Others (sluts that Mazdak and his ilk enjoy denigrating, frat party drunkards) have joy as their primary goal. Good art has as its goal the re-presentation of the highest potentiality of life in form.

With regard to the second it would be best to examine the Greeks, since Western art emerged among them. There is every reason to believe (along with the fact that they also started philosophy and science!) that the Greek, on average, was very clever, as well as being very fit. (And here I am not talking about his achievements, which alone would be enough to deem them intelligent--just look at the historians, for one thing). There are stories about Greek slaves who ended up running everything for their Roman masters. The Greek could also cheat you quite easily.

The Greeks had neither the fast food nor the technology which inclines many Westerners to be fat and physically lazy. The Germans, the Gauls, the Romans, etc., were, I'm sure, physically more fit on average than Westerners. As for the Greeks being fantastically intelligent, their intellectual progress was prodigal precisely because none of it had been done before in the cultural environment they were at. As for the Romans being cultural primatives, so were the Spartans.

It should also be said that a given population has a set of traits that come are instantiated at a given rate. Why couldn't be that these artistic traits are also more prevelent in certain peoples during certain periods than in others, just as we say the same with intelligence? And all these traits do decline as well over time.

Oh, I hardly deny that they are more prevalent in certain peoples. Freezing to death in winter prompted north Eurasian populations to plan ahead and think in terms of months and years instead of days, and disproportionately hacked away at the less intelligent elements of those populations (counter-effected by the fact that all it takes is one guy to figure out how to make a hut or fire or bear skins and soon enough the entire tribe will be doing it).

And by the way, I have never read The Birth of Tragedy, but my position on art agrees with that of his in The Twilight of the Idols:

From "Expiditions of an Untimely Man," section 9.

Ah. Your reference to the Dionysian in terms of aesthetics led me to believe you were relying on Nietzsche's position in The Birth of Tragedy. My apologies.

Yes, this supports my position. But the desire to portray pictures as close to nature springs from the desire to see things clearly--one has a holistic worldview, which is missing today. One is able to connect the Heavenly Spheres to everything from heroic actions of men to the minute occurances of worms.

People today are rarely capable of anything more than a chain of disconnected ramblings--this is because they are incapable of seeing things in the way that people did in brighter times. What I'm saying is that there is something more that binds the parts together, and this has its origin in the artist.

That something is the appreciation of truth, beauty and greatness. Liberalism has led to a moral collapse in which each pursues his own tastes and opinions. Balance, harmony as you put it, is certainly important, but it is not the most important element in great art.

I do not see how this is in any way incompatible with my position. For instance, something is not "heroic" in and of itself. Rather, it is humans who see certain actions as heroic.

Are you sure? One could like at a pile of cow shit and call it heroic if that was true.

As Nietzsche would say, this would rise out of their health and will to power. It is more than just ideals though. Reading Homer, for instance, is like experiencing a stream of consciousness which connects the various aspects of its content. The goal of art is to portray life how one sees it: and that means everything from the most noble to the most mean and to the most trivial.

Of course.

But why would you see the heroic as good in itself? Is there any reason to see it so that it not circular? If not, then this appreciation it has its root in you and not in actions.

There must be there for something to be appreciated. I think we should draw a distinction between personal appreciation and judging something according to what it was supposed to achieve. For example, you might enjoy listening to 'Like Toy Soldiers' by Eminem. I might find Eminem to be an utterly barbarous purveyor of orchestrated noise, but within the tradition of rap, he's certainly one of the best.

To answer your question: the heroic (let's say, Michelangelo's David) is victorious life. I like life - life is my highest value (mine first of all, of course). But to constrast: a degenerate, possibly diseased riddled crack addict like Whitney Houston is a faliure of life - and I find it utterly repulsive. To answer your question: I am alive, the tendency of all life is to further itself, and I am simply doing so within the best knowledge and means I possess - and I intend on enhancing that knowledge and means while I'm still alive. My standard of the great as the object of aesthetic judgement is a reflection of this.

What works of literature would you describe as good works of art?

The Illiad, Lord of the Rings, Atlas Shrugged. I find something missing in all of these, however. I intend to amend that problem before I die.

[Sean]

I disagree that 'strong drives' effects it at all. Most people - including a great many calling themselves Christians - have happiness as their primary goal. Others (sluts that Mazdak and his ilk enjoy denigrating, frat party drunkards) have joy as their primary goal. Good art has as its goal the re-presentation of the highest potentiality of life in form.

Does this mean that only certain aspects of life are to be portrayed in good art? I believe, however, that all aspects of life are to be portrayed--but each person portrays life differently: a noble person will have a much greater portrayal of life (perhaps he will see certain actions as heroic, whereas a lesser man will see them as unjust), while a lesser man not have as great a portrayal of life (perhaps his evaluations of things will be banal, or stupid). Likewise, a noble person will see a cowardly act as bad, while a not so noble person will not see such an act as bad, and this will factor into how they portray it in art.

The Greeks had neither the fast food nor the technology which inclines many Westerners to be fat and physically lazy. The Germans, the Gauls, the Romans, etc., were, I'm sure, physically more fit on average than Westerners. As for the Greeks being fantastically intelligent, their intellectual progress was prodigal precisely because none of it had been done before in the cultural environment they were at.

The Egyptians had about 1500 years of an opportunity to make the progress that the Greeks did in art and the sciences, but why didn't they?

As for the Romans being cultural primatives, so were the Spartans.

This is because the Spartans had to focus on military matters, which was a necessity for them in order that they keep their subject population, the Helots, in line; they always had to fear revolt. If one is spending his entire childhood doing harsh drills, and being toughened up, at the exclusion of any education with regard to music and poetry, he probably won't have the chance to develop the means to create. Athens and Sparta were actually quite similar up to around (I think) 650 BCE--they just had different circumstances that they had to meet, so they both changed in different ways.

Oh, I hardly deny that they are more prevalent in certain peoples. Freezing to death in winter prompted north Eurasian populations to plan ahead and think in terms of months and years instead of days, and disproportionately hacked away at the less intelligent elements of those populations (counter-effected by the fact that all it takes is one guy to figure out how to make a hut or fire or bear skins and soon enough the entire tribe will be doing it).

What I was actually trying to get across there was that artistic traits can be prevalent in certain populations, or not prevalent in some other ones, just as, high IQ, for instance. Populations can decline in ways at times, as well: they may, for instance, become lesser able to govern a region well, or they may lose that which allowed them to create great works of art.

That something is the appreciation of truth, beauty and greatness. Liberalism has led to a moral collapse in which each pursues his own tastes and opinions. Balance, harmony as you put it, is certainly important, but it is not the most important element in great art.

We agree with what it is that makes a great work of art, but we disagree over where that thing is derived: I believe that it is derived from the artist, while you believe that it is derived from certain actions. (Of course, there is always the possibility that the artist is close to those whom he is representing, so that would give credence to both of our views.) But do you think that someone who has no appreciation for what is beautiful will be able to portray the beautiful if he tried? Of course he couldn't! The reason is because he is blind to it; he is incapable of seeing it. What makes an artist great is that he is better able to see it than others can, or rather he can open up a channel for others to see it.

Are you sure? One could like at a pile of cow shit and call it heroic if that was true.

Such a person would be sick. There are people who intentionally create ugly works of art, thinking that there is some sort of beauty in them. These people are spiritually deficient. To say that art arises in the emotions of agents is not to give into relativism. Standards still can be upheld from the point of view of what is healthy and what is sick. For health and sickness are objective phenomena. Think of it as a virtue-ethic for art: a good work of art is that which a good person creates, while a bad work of art is that which a bad person creates.

[Anarch]

Does this mean that only certain aspects of life are to be portrayed in good art?

Certain types of life, yes.

I believe, however, that all aspects of life are to be portrayed--but each person portrays life differently: a noble person will have a much greater portrayal of life (perhaps he will see certain actions as heroic, whereas a lesser man will see them as unjust), while a lesser man not have as great a portrayal of life (perhaps his evaluations of things will be banal, or stupid). Likewise, a noble person will see a cowardly act as bad, while a not so noble person will not see such an act as bad, and this will factor into how they portray it in art.

Ok, let's clarify. Two people: one is a man who loves living, who sees prosperity, health, strength, fertility and so on as great. Another is a horrible wretch who would prefer to see the entire world be reduced to a zero than be confronted with someone, or the product of someone, which reveals him, to himself, to be a miserable, life-hating faliure, by displaying life at its best. Yes, these two will view heroic art and judge it differently, of course. That does not detract from the fact that heroic art is heroic art because it is a recreation of reality with the goal of presenting the best of life.

The Egyptians had about 1500 years of an opportunity to make the progress that the Greeks did in art and the sciences, but why didn't they?

If I recall correctly, the Egyptians did progress in technology, though not in science - and as for art, the Egyptians had their own style of art which different from that of the Greeks.

This is because the Spartans had to focus on military matters, which was a necessity for them in order that they keep their subject population, the Helots, in line; they always had to fear revolt. If one is spending his entire childhood doing harsh drills, and being toughened up, at the exclusion of any education with regard to music and poetry, he probably won't have the chance to develop the means to create. Athens and Sparta were actually quite similar up to around (I think) 650 BCE--they just had different circumstances that they had to meet, so they both changed in different ways.

Except Athens in 650BCE wasn't the prosperous, creative city-state we know it as today. In any case, dedication can compensate for lower-IQ.

What I was actually trying to get across there was that artistic traits can be prevalent in certain populations, or not prevalent in some other ones, just as, high IQ, for instance. Populations can decline in ways at times, as well: they may, for instance, become lesser able to govern a region well, or they may lose that which allowed them to create great works of art.

What permits them to do so is dedication to what is best in life. Of course they can lose what. To spell it out: hedonism and nihilism.

We agree with what it is that makes a great work of art, but we disagree over where that thing is derived: I believe that it is derived from the artist, while you believe that it is derived from certain actions. (Of course, there is always the possibility that the artist is close to those whom he is representing, so that would give credence to both of our views.) But do you think that someone who has no appreciation for what is beautiful will be able to portray the beautiful if he tried? Of course he couldn't! The reason is because he is blind to it; he is incapable of seeing it. What makes an artist great is that he is better able to see it than others can, or rather he can open up a channel for others to see it.

He is not 'incapable' of seeing it. He simply has no inclination to. What makes an artist great is his dedication to be the best in life, and his technical capacity to re/create it.

Such a person would be sick.

Agreed, but irrelevant. You stated: "For instance, something is not "heroic" in and of itself. Rather, it is humans who see certain actions as heroic." And yet with your (predictable :p) reaction, you affirm my position. For if a pile of cow shit is not heroic (sickness implies deviation, does it not?), that means there must be an objective standard of what is heroic. And if there is an objective standard, there must be a principle which is capable of being incarnated in form via human action. And so - you've shot your own position to hell.

There are people who intentionally create ugly works of art, thinking that there is some sort of beauty in them. These people are spiritually deficient. To say that art arises in the emotions of agents is not to give into relativism. Standards still can be upheld from the point of view of what is healthy and what is sick. For health and sickness are objective phenomena. Think of it as a virtue-ethic for art: a good work of art is that which a good person creates, while a bad work of art is that which a bad person creates.

I agree that those who do not dedicate themselves to the best in life cannot produce great art, and those who do, can.

[Sean]

Ok, let's clarify. Two people: one is a man who loves living, who sees prosperity, health, strength, fertility and so on as great. Another is a horrible wretch who would prefer to see the entire world be reduced to a zero than be confronted with someone, or the product of someone, which reveals him, to himself, to be a miserable, life-hating faliure, by displaying life at its best. Yes, these two will view heroic art and judge it differently, of course. That does not detract from the fact that heroic art is heroic art because it is a recreation of reality with the goal of presenting the best of life.

Well, I don't think that our positions are really that different from each other. What started this debate, I think, was my assumption about why art is no longer progressing: namely, it is because the faculties that are necessary for producing it are no longer present, not because everything that is possible is done already.* Even heroic art is heroic in that it displays a set of tendencies--it is the ability to cultivate such tendencies in us that is required in order to create such art (creating, of course, being a another matter then merely being a spectator). Even if you disagree with my view in the extreme (e.g., that it is purely genetic), you must at least be able to admit that our period of time is not one that is conducive to producing great art since nihilisim prevails today.

*And you contradict this later by saying that you plan on amending the problem of there not being a perfect heroic work, implying that there is more to be done. :p

If I recall correctly, the Egyptians did progress in technology, though not in science - and as for art, the Egyptians had their own style of art which different from that of the Greeks.

They had all three, of course. The 1500 years that I am referring to is the period after most of the advances were made in art and science, ending at around 500 BCE (someone who is more familiar with Egyptian history can correct me if I'm wrong here), which, of course, heavily influenced Greek sculpture. But these fields were stagnant in this period. If it was merely a matter of just finding things to produce, then why is it that they couldn't of come up with any more advances in this time period?

Except Athens in 650BCE wasn't the prosperous, creative city-state we know it as today. In any case, dedication can compensate for lower-IQ.

Neither were the other Greek city-states as prosperous and creative as Athens was, but philosophy and poetry still emerged from them. There is at least one Spartan poet of note that I can think of as well. Much of the genius that characterized Athens was also the product of non-Athenian Greeks who stayed there.


What permits them to do so is dedication to what is best in life. Of course they can lose what. To spell it out: hedonism and nihilism.

He is not 'incapable' of seeing it. He simply has no inclination to. What makes an artist great is his dedication to be the best in life, and his technical capacity to re/create it.

Where does this inclination come from?

Agreed, but irrelevant. You stated: "For instance, something is not "heroic" in and of itself. Rather, it is humans who see certain actions as heroic." And yet with your (predictable :p) reaction, you affirm my position. For if a pile of cow shit is not heroic (sickness implies deviation, does it not?), that means there must be an objective standard of what is heroic. And if there is an objective standard, there must be a principle which is capable of being incarnated in form via human action. And so - you've shot your own position to hell.

Who's affirming whose position here? :D All I'm stating is that the ability to create art arises in us. If you admit that some people, or nations, have the ability to create great art while others do not, then you agree with me. To say by this that there is an objective standard of what heroic is is to merely make a trivial statement along the lines of "what is heroic is heroic." I said in post #3 that, "certain prerequisites are necessary in order to be able to 'portray life.'" And this implies that there is an objective standard by which art can be judged (something that I never denied).

[Anarch]

Well, I don't think that our positions are really that different from each other.

That's because they aren't :D Still, it's good to have a highbrow thread on aesthetics.

What started this debate, I think, was my assumption about why art is no longer progressing: namely, it is because the faculties that are necessary for producing it are no longer present, not because everything that is possible is done already.*

Of course. However, I don't think the arts are crumbling because of dysgenics or something like that. People have forgotten the point, more like.

Even heroic art is heroic in that it displays a set of tendencies--it is the ability to cultivate such tendencies in us that is required in order to create such art (creating, of course, being a another matter then merely being a spectator). Even if you disagree with my view in the extreme (e.g., that it is purely genetic), you must at least be able to admit that our period of time is not one that is conducive to producing great art since nihilisim prevails today.

Of course. I'd go so far as to say the beginning of the end came with John Dewey's view on education, though I could be wrong: that education (training, producing people - see Nietzsche's fourth book of The Will to Power) should work on bringing out the innate, super-special personality of an individual, as opposed to trying to produce a type of human. This ends up mixed in with the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School, the ethic flows into postmodernism, and now - nihilistic hedonism.

*And you contradict this later by saying that you plan on amending the problem of there not being a perfect heroic work, implying that there is more to be done. :p

Of course there's more to come :D

They had all three, of course. The 1500 years that I am referring to is the period after most of the advances were made in art and science, ending at around 500 BCE (someone who is more familiar with Egyptian history can correct me if I'm wrong here), which, of course, heavily influenced Greek sculpture. But these fields were stagnant in this period. If it was merely a matter of just finding things to produce, then why is it that they couldn't of come up with any more advances in this time period?

I'm not sure. I'm not especially well read on ancient Egypt. The Greeks were, however, less subservient to authority than just about everyone else, and their confidence in their individual capacity to create surely helped.

Neither were the other Greek city-states as prosperous and creative as Athens was, but philosophy and poetry still emerged from them. There is at least one Spartan poet of note that I can think of as well. Much of the genius that characterized Athens was also the product of non-Athenian Greeks who stayed there.

Ok, sure. The Hellenic race was superb at pioneering... cultured civilisation. The Western race (Celt-Germanic), however, is far superior at it.

Where does this inclination come from?

From the traditions one is born into.

Who's affirming whose position here? :D All I'm stating is that the ability to create art arises in us. If you admit that some people, or nations, have the ability to create great art while others do not, then you agree with me. To say by this that there is an objective standard of what heroic is is to merely make a trivial statement along the lines of "what is heroic is heroic." I said in post #3 that, "certain prerequisites are necessary in order to be able to 'portray life.'" And this implies that there is an objective standard by which art can be judged (something that I never denied).

I don't think 'some nations' can create art. Nations (and religions, and civilisations) no doubt are the carriers of the traditions which permit great artists to develop, but I'm more inclined to think that if someone strangled Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and Handel in their cradles you wouldn't have what they produced. The proles are not the equals of the culture bearing stratum, to reference Yockey.

[Sean]

Of course. I'd go so far as to say the beginning of the end came with John Dewey's view on education, though I could be wrong: that education (training, producing people - see Nietzsche's fourth book of The Will to Power) should work on bringing out the innate, super-special personality of an individual, as opposed to trying to produce a type of human. This ends up mixed in with the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School, the ethic flows into postmodernism, and now - nihilistic hedonism.

Most of the intellectual tendencies of recent times have their roots in the enlightenment tradition. Postmodernism can be traced directly to Nietzsche, but Nietzsche, philosophically, can be traced back to Hume and Kant. In both of these thinkers there is skepticism towards many of the traditional views regarding metaphysics. Hume showed skepticism towards inductive reasoning, and Kant, in attempting to alleviate the problems that Hume brought forth, claimed that causation is due to a subjective faculty, as this was the only way he thought that we could have objective knowledge of it. I also think that the humanist notions that underlie Marxism have their root in Christianity, with its emphasis on the individual's salvation.

I don't think 'some nations' can create art.

I should have been more specific, although I said "great" art. Of course, every society has some art. It is just that some societies are better able to produce it than others.

Nations (and religions, and civilisations) no doubt are the carriers of the traditions which permit great artists to develop, but I'm more inclined to think that if someone strangled Bach, Beethoven, Wagner and Handel in their cradles you wouldn't have what they produced. The proles are not the equals of the culture bearing stratum, to reference Yockey.

I agree, but the question is how it is that certain types of individuals are produced. Could it be that (in this case) Western culture is conducive to producing outstanding individuals, or is it something that is relatively common to the genepool of its populations? (The same question could be asked of other great civilizations as well: why do they produce the type of genius that they do?) One would have to wonder why it is that individuals of genius--not just intelligence, which is more widespread than ever before--are so rare today with education as widespread as it is.

[Anarch]

I also think that the humanist notions that underlie Marxism have their root in Christianity, with its emphasis on the individual's salvation.

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I'll get back to this when I finish reading volume one of Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism. It's not a simple book :p Though I do think ideas come to prominence courtesy of their utility.

I should have been more specific, although I said "great" art. Of course, every society has some art. It is just that some societies are better able to produce it than others.

Of course, some societies are more conducive towards great artists - however, the act of producing great art remains limited to the capacities of individuals, and I do believe this does depends somewhat on both the values and the born capabilities of the artists.

I agree, but the question is how it is that certain types of individuals are produced. Could it be that (in this case) Western culture is conducive to producing outstanding individuals, or is it something that is relatively common to the genepool of its populations? (The same question could be asked of other great civilizations as well: why do they produce the type of genius that they do?) One would have to wonder why it is that individuals of genius--not just intelligence, which is more widespread than ever before--are so rare today with education as widespread as it is.

Western culture is no longer as conducive to great artists as it once was. The contrast between western culture as being structurally conducive to great artists and the relative abundancy of potential great artists in the gene pool is a false dichotomy IMHO. As to why different civilisations have different types of art, I'd recommend reading Oswald Spengler (I'm not a fan of Spengler as I once was, mainly because I object to his concept of Culture-organism - though it should shed some light on the issue). Genius is rare because the institutionalised goods of truth, beauty and greatness have given way to hedonism, the inevitable product of capitalism. They were once tied closely to both secular and sacred power, though both have been losing the strength they once had to serve as rallying points. I think there can be another renaissance.

[Sean]

As for your question of how I found this place--I found it when someone posted a link to it on the old anus.com message board (which is sadly no longer as great a place for discussion as it once was), while I was lurking there. Though it would be a while until I registered here.

I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I'll get back to this when I finish reading volume one of Leszek Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism. It's not a simple book :p Though I do think ideas come to prominence courtesy of their utility.

I certainly agree with the last sentence. If the soil is not right, then ideas, no matter how sublime, will not find acceptance. So, I don't think that ideas in themselves can be the causes of decline; rather, they are symbols of it. Perhaps postmodernism or Marxism can be seen as a corruption of the ideas from which they took root, as opposed to being their natural conclusion?

Western culture is no longer as conducive to great artists as it once was. The contrast between western culture as being structurally conducive to great artists and the relative abundancy of potential great artists in the gene pool is a false dichotomy IMHO.

I agree.

As to why different civilisations have different types of art, I'd recommend reading Oswald Spengler (I'm not a fan of Spengler as I once was, mainly because I object to his concept of Culture-organism - though it should shed some light on the issue).

I just started reading an abridged version of Toynbee's A Study of History (I'm not sure how much he differs to Spengler, but they both deal with the same thing, the study of the laws of civilization), and I might read the copy of Spengler's The Decline of the West shortly afterwards. Though I've never read it, the idea of a culture-organism actually seems quite appealing to me.

I think there can be another renaissance.

I'm not as optimistic as you. I don't think it can be done in an age where everyone has access to it. I think that it would require a complete destruction of society as it is now, with the hope that something could arise out of the ashes.

[Anarch]

As for your question of how I found this place--I found it when someone posted a link to it on the old anus.com message board (which is sadly no longer as great a place for discussion as it once was), while I was lurking there. Though it would be a while until I registered here.

Ok then. We seem to have a acquired a few smart people from there.

I certainly agree with the last sentence. If the soil is not right, then ideas, no matter how sublime, will not find acceptance. So, I don't think that ideas in themselves can be the causes of decline; rather, they are symbols of it. Perhaps postmodernism or Marxism can be seen as a corruption of the ideas from which they took root, as opposed to being their natural conclusion?

If postmodernism is traced back to Nietzsche, and neo-Marxism is traced back to Marx, then yes, both are corrupted. Actually, I wish to revise my earlier statement: rather, ideas and power go hand in hand. Ideas can become a transformative cause in their own right. And one must define power.

I just started reading an abridged version of Toynbee's A Study of History (I'm not sure how much he differs to Spengler, but they both deal with the same thing, the study of the laws of civilization), and I might read the copy of Spengler's The Decline of the West shortly afterwards. Though I've never read it, the idea of a culture-organism actually seems quite appealing to me.

Toynbee isn't bad, but he does differ a lot from Spengler. When you read Spengler, do your best to read an unabriged edition of the Decline. It might be difficult, but it's infinitely superior to the abriged version.

I'm not as optimistic as you. I don't think it can be done in an age where everyone has access to it. I think that it would require a complete destruction of society as it is now, with the hope that something could arise out of the ashes.

I think it would require a religious revival of sorts. I don't think society needs to be destroyed - but a revolution is needed, sure. A revolution of the mind. In an age of darkness, a man with a torch is seen by all. To paraphrase Jesus, 'those who have eyes to see, let them see'. It'd be hard, but I think it can be done.

[Sean]

If postmodernism is traced back to Nietzsche, and neo-Marxism is traced back to Marx, then yes, both are corrupted. Actually, I wish to revise my earlier statement: rather, ideas and power go hand in hand. Ideas can become a transformative cause in their own right. And one must define power.

But wouldn't leaders just use ideas that are useful, use being determined by the needs of the people?

I think it would require a religious revival of sorts. I don't think society needs to be destroyed - but a revolution is needed, sure. A revolution of the mind. In an age of darkness, a man with a torch is seen by all. To paraphrase Jesus, 'those who have eyes to see, let them see'. It'd be hard, but I think it can be done.

I think that it would take a new way of perception (since, when cultures are left by themselves, they eventually grow stale), and the only way for this to come about would be by different circumstances. But there are many things which would prevent this from happening: the rise of material comfort on a much greater scale than ever before--other societies are attempting, in the sphere of economics, politics, and science to catch up with the West (thought they might attempt to maintain their native cultures at the same time, these modern advances, I think, would definitely have an impact on these cultures, for various reasons). It is also technology that has increased: it allows for greater communication between individuals, and it will help further the nation-state's grip on power. I think that technology and comfort will be a barrier to any attempt at a change. For instance, Rome needed the barbarians to in order to die off and to allow for the West to have a chance to grow.

Christianity certainly has been seeing somewhat of a revival, but I think that it is highly tempered by current ways of thinking, and is devoid of any serious spirituality (save that of a narcotic; not the type to give one a goal or anything). Religious ideals will die out overtime--as can be seen in Antiquity, where Christianity prevailed since the old gods failed to fill the spiritual needs of the age. I think that if a revival is to take place, then it would have to be as the result of something new, perhaps a reevaluation of Christianity (or who knows how other societies will react to picking up this alien religion?), or--I hate to say it, but--possibly either Islam or transhumanism are two seemingly undesirable options that could bring about a new perspective and encourage cultural growth.