A brief addendum to the above, as something just occurred to me: What I'm trying to say is that in order to disqualify this idea of the source of the aesthetic experience being located in the intentional choices of the artist, we would have to be able to give examples of artworks whose source of aesthetic experience can NOT be returned to the fact of the artist having intentionally operated upon the work. Any explanation that locates the source in physical features of the work will automatically return us to the fact of someone having decided upon those features.
I think I should also explain my differentiation between "sensual" (derived from nature) and "aesthetic" pleasure (derived from art). For example: let's suppose that by some freak accident a pot of black paint fell over a primed canvas and a tortoise happened to crawl over the wet mess of paint, producing an end result not entirely dissimilar to a Kline monochrome (forgive this clichid example, it's only for illustration). This resulting object may well for several people said to be a source of sensual pleasure - of a similar sort as something found in nature - but there can certainly be no talk of aesthetic experience, as nothing of that pleasure can be traced back to the fact of anyone having made any decisions intentionally. If someone then happens to find that thing and decides to put it up in a gallery and say they made it, well, then we have a problem - but that is already a very far-fetched example and a deliberate hoax to boot so it doesn't really have bearing on what I'm trying to say in general. Can anyone here think of an aesthetic experience they've had that did not in the above sense originate in the intentional choices of the artist? Or is there a circular or other fallacy here in my thinking? 16. maaliskuuta 2012 9.11 john m <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > Wow, thanks for your thorough reply - very pleasantly surprised to see my > inchoate fumblings given serious consideration. I'm in Europe and not > writing in my mother tongue so you'll have to excuse some shaky > terminology/spelling occasionally! It's not a school assignment, but a > purely personal interest - I run into arguments with people about these > issues frequently, and someone finally managed to push me into formulating > my stance in writing. > > I'm afraid I tried to condense too much for that first post and > consequently wasn't clear enough on some points - maybe I should try to > elaborate/clarify a little bit: > > > > > 1. A "work of art" is any thing produced by an artist with the explicit > > > intention of producing a work of art. > > > > This claim is refuted by the obvious fact that much art in the world has > unknown > > own authors and thus unknown intentions. > > But I'm not presuming that the authors be known or that their specific > intentions be known, only that the object be obviously the result of > operations of the imagination of a sentient being (and not forces of > nature). Craft and "design" objects are obviously included in this > definition as well. (How many paintings or symphonies can we imagine having > come about without human imagination having been in operation?) > > > > > 2. The physical form of an artwork is an accumulation of intentional > > > choices (operations of imagination) of the artist. > > > > Again, the intentionality issue undercuts your argument. Many artists > claim that > > they 'intended' one thing but actually did another. > > I'm afraid I really pared these points down too much! To me, it doesn't > matter whether a feature of a work is accidental or not - the artist is > still making a decision in leaving it in or editing it out. My aesthetic > experience derives from their having made that decision to throw the dice > (or paint) and leave it in. I'm familiar with the critique of > intentionalism, I agree that most of the time we can't know the EXACT > intentions of the artist, but we can tell from the evidence in the work > that they did work intentionally - the work came about as a result of their > intentional actions, not by accident. (Note the difference between > indeterminate processes of generating/arranging materials and > unintentionally producing an art object - the latter being unimaginable > according to the above definition of artwork) > > I should also have stressed that it's crucial to my thinking that all > necessary information can be extracted from the work itself (that is, the > evidence). > > > > > The evidence is an interface between the physical appearance of the > work > > > and the creative process. > > > > Appearance of the work to whom? > > Appearance was a badly chosen word - I mean the work as a physical object > (wood, canvas and paint for example). > > > > What's the creative process? > > The "creative process" is the process in which for example an unpainted > canvas ends up as a painting - a shorthand for "the series of decisions > made by the artist". > > > > The bottom line here is that nothing is beautiful or art until someone > says so > > "Beautiful" is a prescriptive term and as such invalid in my thinking: but > an art object is empirically art as soon as it's manufactured, it doesn't > need saying or recognition from an art world etc. It's an art object even > if nobody ever sees it. "Great art" is a prescriptive concept as well, of > no relevance as it can't be discussed empirically. > > What I'm saying here has to do with WHERE the essence (source of aesthetic > experience) is located. It can't be in the material as such (like red paint > or the sound of a flute); it can't be in picture plane, because that would > lead us to making prescriptive statements about what sort of materials, > compositions, etc. produce aesthetic experience, and besides dragging us > back to subjectivism. Empirically it's clear that anything at all can > produce the aesthetic experience: the only requirement is that someone made > that decision that leads to your aesthetic organ being tickled. (The > feeling one gets from seeing an untouched landscape or something found in > nature is not an aesthetic experience, I think that's an obvious confusion) > > I stumbled upon this excellent quote from an art historian Max Raphakl, > which gets very near to what I'm trying to say: "The work of art holds > man's creative powers in a crystalline suspension from which they can again > be transformed into living energies" (quoted in John Berger, "The WORK of > art"). Also: "Art and the study of art lead FROM the work TO the process of > creation" (ibid, my emphasis). I think I should probably look further into > his thinking. > > > > > 4. In order to understand a work of art, we must renounce (at least > part > > > of) our own subjective taste and seek identification with the [artist] > > > > > This sounds like Tolstoy whose aesthetic theory was based on > communication, > > meaning the communication of the artist's expression or feeling to the > beholder. > > But Tolstoy was ultra-prescriptive and demanded certain things to be > communicated by art. I don't think communication is the point here; > identification is closer to what I'm thinking about. > > I'm not concerned with "expressive feelings", I'm talking about the > decision to take out the snare drum on the first four measures, or the > decision to apply a thin coat of green paint on the upper half of the red > rectangle, or to leave the camera rolling for an extra five seconds after > the actor has left the frame. These things are incontestably and verifiably > present in the work. What is embodied in the work are the decisions of the > artist to put these things in it, nothing more and nothing less. And by > putting myself in the artist's shoes I can try to come to an understanding > of how they came to put these things in. > > What my idea actually sounds a bit like is Croce saying we must "become > Dante" when reading the Commedia; we must identify with the position of the > artist making these decisions in order to see how they make sense in the > totality of the work. So for me, to understand an artwork means to > understand as much as possible how that work came to be (or might have come > to be), and to understand the interrelatedness of the choices made by the > artists, to understand how all these choices made sense for the person who > made this object. > > (It's interesting you should mention Collingwood, who I think is generally > viewed as a follower of Croce - I know both only superficially, but can't > subscribe to Collingwood's prescriptive ideas of "proper art" and > "entertainment". Either way I guess I should read his book.) > > You're absolutely right about the phenomenology and connoiseurship: I am > worried about whether my approach has anything to do with aesthetics at > all, or is it just a denial of the possibility of aesthetics? But the > aesthetic experience is crucial to it. > At any rate I don't consider it a flaw not to offer tools for gauging > relative worth of artworks, as to me it's axiomatic that nothing of the
