When we were told that we will be going to write about our own concept of what is aesthetically pleasing now that we had come across all these concepts on aesthetics and familiarize ourselves with Burke, Kant, Hume, Hegel to name a few, it suddenly occurred to me I never give a time to stop and ponder on this. It was only last Monday afternoon when I found myself alone at the atrium that I started to weave my thoughts on this word-beauty.
Four months of dealing with this subject, reading what seemed to be things that for some don’t matter—something you cannot practically use to invent an object that can change the world like a cure for AIDS. I began to question why we should be reading about these things. What will I gain by criticizing a photograph, a painting done by Pollock which seemed to be a product of a kid who just learn to hold a pencil, looking at Kublai’s sculpture? But then I realized how dull would the world be if it wasn’t for these geniuses, the artist, not all of them might be a scientist—the Einstein who invented atomic bomb, but it is certain that they have an impact in this world we live in. A world without art is a world without human. Why? As what was mentioned in our class, if art is only an imitation and just a deception, art is just taking you away from reality, then you are like saying that we are not humans capable of feeling (don’t know the exact words but it’s something like that). Thus, it makes sense to study about the nature and value of art.
Ever since I knew I exist I always love beautiful things, I associate beauty with dainty things, dolls, sailormoon, flowers and ballerinas. But unlike most little girls I didn’t like pink, I liked the color orange. Whenever we, my friends and I, reminisce our childhood days, my friends always agreed how they loved the color pink. I have wondered what’s with pink anyways. So is it in the color pink, or is it in the mind of little girls that make pink aesthetically pleasing for them? This is one question that aesthetics deals with, that is, if beauty is inherent in an object or does it lie only in the mind of the individual experiencing the object. This query I will try to unravel as I begin my quest on finding my own concept of what is aesthetically pleasing. Before reaching to my own concept of beauty, first I must looked back to the road I traveled in which I encountered many thinkers that made me scratch my head to help me construct my own.
On the road, I first met Burke with his huge tag attached to his shirt that reads “Sublimity.” I was awed with what he introduced to my beginner mind. What he said is mentally or physically overpowering that mostly accompanied with terror. Then, there was mentioned an experience about an encounter of a snake that first brought fear then gradually notices the beauty of the thing of terror. I was puzzled. I do agree with what Burke said that fear is a very high degree of emotion that makes everything else fade away. Like watching a horror flick, you get so affected that you can’t even sleep because still you think of that terrifying scenes, yet still you want to watch horror. However, I still cannot find a thing of terror to be aesthetically pleasing. It might be sublime but it does not follow that it is beautiful. Having this uncertainty on the definition of sublimity I turn to Longinus who said that “the first and most important source of sublimity is the power of forming great conceptions.” The sublime is something beyond ordinary that brings exaltation to those who witness it. So it’s not like what Burke said, I said to myself, the sublime is a thing of great beauty not full of terror… But before I concluded that Burke has gone to another sphere, Longinus said that the sublime cannot identify itself only to what is simply beautiful, but also to what is so upsetting to cause “bewilderment” (ΕΚΠΛΗΞΙΣ), “surprise” (ΤΟ ΘΑΥΜΑΣΤΟΝ) and even “fear.” I had to stop and carefully absorbed these things which seemed to be simple yet I could not process it. Hmmm, so I need not to confuse myself if I chose to see an object without fear as sublime because Burke is not saying that sublimity is limited to things with terror rather Burke presented that sublimity is not only found on beautiful things but also with horrible things. I am gradually seeing what Burke said whenever I see villains in soap operas, they are terrifying yet for me they are more appealing than the angelic faces of lead actors.
Moving on, I saw Hume arguing that there is a point in trying to discover rational standards of taste. He started saying that no people no matter how alike their experiences are would have the same preferences. So based on this, beauty is then subjective. Yet people set standards because there is a need to reconcile their differences. What would happen if all of us will live accordingly on our own will? Having no standards is like a world without laws. It does not mean that having standard will violate a person’s right to judge a thing. I found myself nodding with what Hume said. When standards are set, then came qualities of what makes an art beautiful, and for one to see this, he/she must have experience as what Hume said that a qualified critic should be aided with practice, free from prejudice, delicate sentiment and perfected with comparison. I especially like the last quality—perfected with comparison. To really see the best you must see the worst. Not only that, you must have witness several of those to let you point out the best because how can you say this is the best when you only saw five percent of all the existing entity of the same category Before I didn’t understand why many like this certain movie (I chose not to mention the title) when for me it’s one of the shallowest movies I ever watch, I couldn’t even give credit to its songs and dances having seen many movies having same elements. Perhaps, they liked it because they haven’t compared it to other movies having the same elements. I recalled our professor saying as Communication Arts students we must study Aesthetics so we will not be “jologs.” “Jologs” exist because there are standards. If there is a need to know what makes something not “jologs,” then it implies that beauty is not completely subjective, right?
Before I get overwhelmed with my sentiments over “jologness” I proceed to enter the world of Immanuel Kant whom I met before and he shaken my partiality on democracy. But now I see a different angle of Kant, well I never thought he’ll be talking about aesthetics. So here comes Kant, will he helped me out in my quest of finding the answer to my question? At first Kant convinced me that beauty is indeed subjective with his concept of Pure intuition I really liked this term. It’s all about what is going on inside a person’s soul when he/she sees something an object, then it means that beauty is not in the object but in the person because the one who experience the feeling is the individual. What makes it even more appealing is how it implies that one need not know what really is in the object that makes you like it because it is prior to logic, trying to rationalize will taint the pureness of it. But what I can’t seem to grasp at first is his disinterestedness. He then says that it must be free from desire. If I were to base it from my own experience, I always seem to want what tickled my fancy. But Kant said that the thing called “BEAUTY” is pleasing for itself and free from desire or approval. I was thinking over this and finding out an experience of something that I like but I didn’t want. And I found out there are things in this world that simply takes my breath away but because for me it’s too beautiful to behold I don’t desire to have it. I wished to ask Kant if that experiences is pure intuition, but I can’t. Clouds in my head were clearing out but then Kant added that beauty is subjective but also universal, I scratched my head. “The content of judgment refers to the form of the object.” So there is something in the object that makes you think of it this way. Slowly I process it in my mind, then a light came, okay that’s why I used to believe that beauty is not solely objective because actually you have this feelings towards an object because this object is in this form. Common sense. Kant also touches the idea of Genius. The way I took it is that a genius is born not made. It is endowed in an individual. Well, I’ve actually painstakingly read the entire readings on Kant yet the more I read the more confused I get. What I’ve learned from him is actually what I heard of him not what I read of him. Well, Kant is a confusing guy for me or am I just not getting it because of my own deficiencies so I turn to Hegel whom I thought to be so contemplative.
Dealing with Hegel takes me into another dimension, THE SPIRIT, the self-conscience that I chose not to discuss because I don’t know how to relate it to the idea of aesthetically pleasing. What I do like is Hegel’s dialectical method. I always give credit to oppositions. By challenging what is there you can come up with a better understanding of things. Oppositions are needed for us to see or to know the existence of things. The thing is defined by what is, and what is not. The idea is pretty interesting. My own take on opposition in relation to beauty is that beauty exists because ugliness exists. For how can you recognize the light if you don’t know the darkness. How can you appreciate the real value of the existence of things when you never feel its absence.
Time travel. I went back as far as the time of Plato. Plato said that an artist is a deceiver since what he makes is three times removed from the ideal. I do not completely agree with Plato, especially these times when art has broaden its horizon, unlike Plato’s time when artists paints in such a way that it looked like what is real or what is present in this world. I appreciate paintings not for its closeness to reality, I prefer artist who can create something new. An artist is not a copier of things; an artist is creative and innovative. An aesthetically pleasing painting for me then does not depend on how close it resembles to real things in the world but on how it creatively, in a new way, presented the world.
As what Gombrich said that there are limits to objectivity on art, art is not a faithful resemblance of what is there but only a perspective of what is there. “Style rules even where the artist wishes to reproduce nature faithfully.” This means that the subject matter of a work of art, such as a landscape, is filtered through the artist’s subjectivity. Artists are individuals with their own personalities, purposes, unique style and capabilities. In every artwork there is an artist you cannot separate him/her from his/her work, that’s why one can see certain similarities in an artist works. An art too can also be directed to a certain audience that’s why it is subject to subjectivity again. The concept of art to one culture might be contradicting to another. We really could not expect to arrive at the universal concept of beauty just like we could not look for the universal communicational foundations of mutual understanding. There are a lot of ways of seeing things.
Before Gombrich, I forgot to mention that I also crossed paths with Bell. I do not really recall much what he said all I know is that he sees the work of art specifically visual art as valuable. And he said that we experience “aesthetic emotion” because of the significant form which is made up by the lines and colors combined in a particular way. He also criticizes those who judge art with no artistic sensibility and clear thinking.
I bumped into Danto and he offered something new, he told of how an ordinary object can be indistinguishable from the work of art. At first, I didn’t quite get it. Then, he showed me Lichtenstein’s works and I found myself nodding in agreement seeing a painting that looked like just another comic cartoons. What then is in a work of art that makes it art? Hmmm, it can be the medium, because the comic is printed with ink while painting used oil. I don’t know. This made me realize that I still haven’t established my definition of art.
Then goes, Derrida discussing the truth in painting. What I learned from him is that a painting is the interpretation of truth, the shoes we see in the painting is a different and separate entity from the shoes in the real world. A painting is not necessarily a representation of what is in your reality. Because the truth of the painting is the painting itself not something in this world.
Finally, I met a woman; I thought this journey is completely male. I caught up with Linda Nochlin who discussed a question that I too have once asked. Why are there been no great women artist? Because they are incapable of greatness? No, it’s not what is in a woman but what is in the environment she lives in, which is so designed partially to men. Society way then was structured is such a way that men have more opportunities than women, no wonder all of these great philosophers were me. Given the chance, I believe women can do even better.
Perhaps, one of the turning points of art as depicting reality was when the camera was invented. With just a click you can have a picture so little time consumed compared to drawing or painting. Art became accessible not only for the rich but also for the poor. For me photography redefined art, it raise the issue that why do we have to trouble ourselves painting for how many hours when you can do it within a second through taking a picture. However, I believe painting is a different thing from photography; each has its own uniqueness as a form of art that’s why you can’t compare the two. The invention of camera made us capture moments that will never be repeated. It’s not just the scene in the photograph that makes it beautiful but also the memories in it. I chose not to reiterate what Walter Benjamin and Terry Barrett said about photography for it was said in the exact way that I can only say it. The same as painting, the photo also reflects the man behind it. The same as paintings, the way we judge photos depends on several factors. Once again it shows the subjectivity of art.
I saved the best for last, the art which is closest to my heart--movies. Unlike the others that I’ve met along the way who caused me to scratch my head before understanding what they said, Noel Carroll’s “The Power of Movies” Laura Mulvey’s “Woman as Image” Stanley Cavell’s “Audience, Actor, Star” Alexander Sesonske’s “Space, Time, and Motion in Film” are people I am more at ease with and less intimidated. I especially appreciate what Plato said about a movie and its power even though he was not able to see it came into reality. Movies among all the works of art have an impact in my life. It became a source of happiness for me. It is undeniable how movies are very much capable of making you cry, laugh, frightened, and even sexually arouse (to some). Among all kinds of art I think of it as the most influential nowadays. I need not say more of what makes movies powerful for I’ve talked about it for three thousand words in my previous post.
Finally, I come to the end of my quest. Here I must say my concept of what is aesthetically pleasing. First, I must answer the question I had at the beginning of the quest, if beauty resides in the object or in the mind of the individual. Well, I must say beauty lies in the mind of an individual. Beauty is experience by us human beings who are capable of feeling. Yet it is still a mystery of how certain objects made you experience such. For this reason I cannot say that beauty and the object is completely separated. Answering this I can now move on with what is aesthetically pleasing for me. Those are the experiences, the things our senses perceived that delights and uplifts our soul. How we see the world depends on how wide is our understanding of the world, how much we have witnessed. That’s why there are differences in people’s taste because each of us has our own set of values, experiences beliefs and a unique mind that shapes our aesthetic experiences. What is aesthetically pleasing has no finality. It changes and evolves through time. In a given time, in a specific place we set standards on how we judge things which is natural because we are humans and we seek for a common ground.
Beauty is simply a word that we use to describe what our senses tell us though we are not really sure if it even meets that feeling. For this reason I believed it is impossible for us to come up with one thing that sums up all these concepts we have on aesthetics. At times, I just wonder how we tend to complicate things…Thus, in the simplest way I could describe beauty is that beauty reside on those that bring happiness to a human soul. It need no further explanation as to how it brought happiness.
.jpg)
