I Heart Aesthetics

Based on the response from my "What is Art?" post, I have come to terms with my own insecurity and have decided to blog seriously on the topic. Friends that have spent more than five hours with me will no doubt be bored by the discussion since it rehashes many of the discussions I have had over the past year about Art stemming from Philosophy and Psychology of Music Education courses and, more influentially, the History of Theory and Criticism course that I audited with my good friend Kristen (who is a guy). He and I also collaborated on a seminar on creativity, from which material for this entry draws upon.

DISCLAIMER: People far more eloquent than I have commented on the subject (aesthetics) but to those who do not follow such blogs, I offer a point of view which draws heavily on the influence of this individual. For those who like primary sources, waste not thine time here.

The form that this will take is this: I will pose some questions about art and attempt to answer them. In the end, we will hopefully have an answer to the larger question I posed last time, which was "What is art?"

Let's start with this one: "What is good art?"

The question of good art versus bad art is exemplified nicely by using two examples: this


and this


Now, in order to not affect your bias, I will hold off with the source of these paintings, and I'll ask you a question (I am apparently all about questions and colons): Which would you say qualifies as art?

You may have seen variations on the second one in museums that you visited. They may have made you angry. I could have done this you say. Indeed. You could.

Some of you may have sensed a trap. Indeed that is what this was. The second painting is by Kazimir Malevich, a renowned painter. This work, entitled Black Square, is an example of Geometric Abstraction which was a movement that came about as a statement in response to the impressionist and prior artistic movements, asserting the limitations of the form (i.e. that an artwork is nothing more than a 2-Dimensional object).

The first painting is by an elephant.

This throws some obvious wrenches into our conceptions of "art" and forces some further questions. First, can animals be artists? Second, can the macaroni picture I made when I was 4 be considered art?

The argument has many sides. However, before we embark on this (no doubt) lengthy discussion, I think it's worth establishing what kinds of art exist. Specifically, I would like to define the difference between "Representational Art" and "Non-representational Art". The difference is simple but it makes for some interesting distinctions later on. Representational Art is that which has a direct correlation to real life, i.e. Fiction or Literature, which tells a specific story about (some character's) life; the type of Visual Art which depicts real life events or landscapes; most types of Theatre. Even if the fictitious work is Fantasy or Sci-Fi, it still deals with physical interactions.

The difference becomes clearer in contrast to Non-representational works of art. These are things like Instrumental Music, Abstract Visual Art, Dance (without the narrative elements). All music can technically be considered non-representational, since a single note does not correspond to any physical object or emotion, but some consider Programmatic Music (like the Debussy Preludes or Peter and the Wolf by Prokofiev) to be representational.

NOW, let's tackle this sticky issue. First, Which takes precedence: the artist's intention or the audience/appreciator's interpretation? There are several theories, the names of which I would appreciate assistance with. However, it seems to me that the artist's intention means relatively little in the grand scheme of things. It is certainly interesting, but the obsession with an artist's intention seems to betray a fundamental misunderstanding about art, especially non-representational forms like music. Once a work is completed and premiered, it leaves the grasp of the artist and goes out into the world, taking on infinite forms, eliciting infinite emotions and responses in the people with whom it comes in contact. Therefore, an artist like Stravinsky, who believed that there was a "right" way to perform his piece, is sort of missing the point. Certainly, the modern tendency to perform things uptempo (paging Leonard Bernstein*) changes things, but Stravinsky is fighting a losing battle if he thinks that by getting everyone to perform his pieces the exact same way he will ensure audiences respond the way he intended. Discussion on this point encouraged.

The point is that an artist cannot possibly FedEx his emotions to you via a work of art (to steal a quotation from Aaron James). The classic example is of Beethoven being appropriated by the Nazis during the Second World War as symbol of their power (and the superiority of the German blood line). The fact that these things can be so readily misinterpreted suggests that the intent of the composer is rather irrelevant to how a piece is interpreted. The same is true for representative works of art and if you've ever sat through an English class and wondered whether Shakespeare was really making all these political statements or whether your professor was making things up to keep his job, then you know what I'm talking about. Sure, it's interesting to speculate and it sometimes gives people a point of reference, but at the end of the day even the artist herself cannot tell you accurately what the work is "communicating" since it is entirely subjective.

This issue of subjectivity brings up our second question: is there such a thing as "good" art but I will pull a Star Trek and leave you hanging...

*Compare Bernstein's version of Shostakovich Symphony No. 5 with this version conducted by Paavo Jarvi (Hong Kong).