On Jul 30, 2012, at 9:12 AM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote:
> It was Clive Bell who used the term significant form to refer to a
particular
> arrangement or attitude that could be presented in art.
Rats. Senior lapse. My mistake.
> He used the term to
> mean much the same thing as the Beaux-Arts artists did but didn't attach it
to
> the notion of the moral, as the Beaux-Arts artists did. That's why I
brought up
> the term. I think it's curious that modern art theory, such as significant
form
> (now , simply formalism) is never discussed in its historical use which
linked
> it to the moral. Whether formalism is moral or not is separate from being
> identical with any views of nature as it is or as presented. But since the
> moral has been cast off from modernist formalism, it can adhere to nature;
> nature can be said to be moral now. That is the crux of the issue regarding
> your own definition. Where is the moral, in nature or in art? You say that
> nature demoralizes art. I suppose that puts it in art. Then you say art
> moralizes nature. That puts it in nature. The moral is shuttled back and
forth.
> OK. By what means? What agent is tossing the hot potato, the moral, back
and
> forth between nature and art?
By moral, I mean ("I am thinking of") the kind of distinction that was
formerly made between moral philosophy, i.e., a knowledge of right action, and
natural philosophy, knowledge of natural phenomena.
The natural roots of moral philosophy (natural law) run into problems with
self-interested acts and violence, viz, "nature, red in tooth and claw." Human
moral philosophy, ethics, and moral codes per se seem to differentiate between
humans, who can decide on right action, and animals, who are able to move
around but who cannot make "right" or "wrong" choices. Plants, the earth, sea,
and sky are farther beyond the scope of moral law because they lack the kind
of motive control over their actions that animals and humans have. Plants grow
where the seeds fall, rivers flow downhill, the earth doesn't move (and when
it does, "gods" make it happen), and the winds and clouds act in
uncontrollable and unknowable ways (at least until modern meterological
science learned some of their secrets).
I believe that everything humans do falls under the scope of moral evaluation
and judgment. Art is one of those things. And in all human endeavors, some
practitioners study and define what they take to be the core or important
elements of that practice or discipline, and they or others declare some ways
of doing it or results to be preferable to other ways or results. I am
confident that this is not a controversial insight. Every discipline, craft,
practice, area, etc. has guidelines and regulations, and they have regimens of
training that tell students the best and least effective ways of doing things.
Some disciplines, like medicine, are so important and may have such dire
consequences that some of their rules and guidelines are enforced by law.
Other disciplines, like art, are not so dangerous and their guidelines come
down to various forms of consensus and social agreement.
To return to my motto: Art is a realm of human activity. All realms of human
activity are circumscribed in various degrees by rules, covenants, canons,
etc., that people have made and that regulate and give a degree of coherence
to them. To the extent that these regulations pronounce 'good' and 'bad'
choices to make when practicing that art form, they are "moral" guidelines,
and artists follow or ignore those "moral" regulations. Nature, of course, in
unconcerned about human "moral" rules about artistic matters. Thus, it
"de-moralizes" art.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
