As we saw in the last post Plato had mixed views of art and aesthetic experience when considered from a cultural point of view. Aristotle, who was a student of Plato, took his teachers concerns to heart and pondered them. Being a strong observer of nature and culture rather than a pure thinker (like Plato) Aristotle thought he could unravel some of the doubts of his master through the scientific observation of art in culture and form and function within nature. Here are some of the key points of Aristotle on art and Aesthetics:
1. Nature is dynamic and designed for a purpose. 2. Art emulates nature; the arts and especially music are patterned energy created for a purpose to move another emotionally. 3. Just as we move from infancy and instinct toward adulthood and mature thought, so we see a similar evolution in humanities comprehension of art from instinct to patterned thought and logically guided form to evoke certain emotions and ideas. 4. the way a great tragic play is organized to produce insight shows a logic that is scientific and purpose-driven by the writer or designer. 5. Fantasy is the cause of poetry and shows a fusion of form and matter into a pattern which is driven by the purpose to teach a lesson. Fantasy can be used for pleasure and for a good. 6. Catharsis which is the release of deep emotion, grief, sadness etc. can be achieved by a good play (in our era film, book, etc) 7. A viewer of a good film or play etc. experiences rational or logically patterned emotion leading to a moral point or practical lesson or the release of a painful memory or emotion and is therefore good in that sense. 8. Aristotle celebrated the remarkable ways in which art media can be shaped by humans and he could not stop talking about the skill of the artist/shape-maker who was like God in creative/shaping capacity and artistic logic. In the end Aristotle believed that art and fantasy are of real benefits to society if used wisely by mature artists for the good of others.
35 comments:
I like that Aristotle compared the way we learn to comprehend are to the way we grow from infancy to mature thought. I believe it's true that our experience of art is a process of growth and change. Aristotle seems less worried than Plato about the way art effects us. He seems to believe the effect of expression, which emulates realty and patterns in nature, generally creates positive responses in people because it triggers a memory or an emotion that we relate to or is drawn out and experienced in a healing way. I think everyone can agree in a sense because we've all either seen a film, heard a song or observed a piece of art that we felt "changed" or "moved" by. I think as a rule of thumb it can't be that good if you don't walk away feeling different, feeling some insight, some change in perspective, or some connection. Even if it's negative, even if a film or art piece made you feel disgust or anger. Aristotle mentions that "art and fantasy are of real benefits to society if used wisely by mature artists for the good of others" which i agree with and most of us do want to effect other's positively by the things we create. But what about those who have something to express but may not be the "mature artists" Aristotle is talking about? You can't really control who creates, why they do it or what they intend their message to be. I think this is what Plato fears. I can't help but think of the complaints we've seen in the past such as "Marilyn Manson's music inspires kids to shoot their class mates". Yet he considers himself an artists, but people have accused him of inspiring violence and hatefulness with his artistic expression.
When talking about the power of art to effect people, is this the other side of the coin Plato expresses concern about? Even so, how do be begin to talk about and consider the validity of this kind of expression and the way it effects us?
I find that I agree with Aristotle alot on his views of art especially pertaining to his interpretation of catharsis. Through art we can release emotions that build up inside us and let go of them, like a form of therapy. This becomes and experience both felt by the creator and viewer/consumer of art. I believe that the emotional intensity found in all art forms deepens us and can lead to a stronger awareness to what is considered 'universal.'
The assumption that nature is designed for a purpose is something I've always found presumptuous and limiting. Granted Artistotle was going by ideas about the world at the time, but nature really isn't designed for anything, and only gives the illusion of design by selection. There are lots of arguably useless things in nature. (When you find a use for your appendix besides feeding a doctor's family, let me know.) Arguably there is a lot of art that is technically 'useless' as well. (Including those intentionally useless, such as various anti-art movements.) There are also often a lot of pieces that produce results that their designers did not intend. Art isn't always so carefully calculated and controlled.
I find it interesting that he states that it can be beneficial if used for good. I have always thought of my talent as a super power and I must use it for the benefit of mankind. So what he is saying about art and it's uses fall in line with how I think about art should be. Let our powers unite for the well being of the world.
I enjoyed reading Aristotle's views especially when he brought up fantasy saying that is the cause of poetry and shows a fusion of form and matter into a pattern which is driven by the purpose to teach a lesson. And also that fantasy can be used for pleasure and for good. This assures my own beliefs in the positivity of fantasy, when compared to Plato who thought at its very worse art is fantasy and can corrupt the logical operations of the mind.
I love the idea of a rational emotional response, it sounds contradictory but it makes sense. I disagree with Aristotle about art only being good if it's used for a moral good, a good painting doesn't need to try and end world hunger in order to be beautiful and worth doing. An exploration of the individual artist's feelings, or ideas, or the world around them is more than worthwhile. I believe that a person should always be aware of the consequences of their actions and the effect that there art will have, but that does not mean merely producing preachy paintings.
Is the idea of catharsis presented here the source of art therapy classes?
I agree more with aristotle than plato on views of art. to me personally, art is created first for ourselves and then through different media it creates a reaction (good or bad) from others.
like Camilla said, Marilyn Manson had a bunch of finger pointed at him during Columbine. He considers himself an artist, but it's not his responsibility to make sure your kids won't take his lyrics to heart.
No matter what art form, the response from the viewer shows the success of what was created. Art is therapeutic weather we realize it or not. Photo, painting, film or music it all can bring a sense of awareness and expression to something we may feel but not be able to express ourselves.
I find many of Aristotle's views to be valid. I especially agree that art emulates nature. The way I interpret this statement is that art is also a commentator of society. I look at "nature" as not just natural forms, but as the society in which we live. Art, film, music, etc are a reaction to the culture in which we live.
At the end Aristotle says that art should be used wisely for the good of others. I don't believe that art necessarily has to benefit or better anyone for viewing it, sometimes art can serve the purpose of evoking or offending. While it might feel uncomfortable it is making a statement. Art is not simply about beauty and the greater good, it is about forward movement and change.
I agreed with most of Aristotle's views on art. I feel he was much more in touch with the artist's purpose and intent than Plato. I know that as an animator I always try to positively influence my audience. In my current animated short I am trying to help children overcome their fears.
Samantha
Willson
There is a lot of truth to Aristotle's observance to nature and connection to Plato's ideas on art. Many artists are indeed influenced by the nature that is around us, the natural world that inspires the mind, and imagination, the organic feeling one senses in surroundings. Nature helps us get in touch with our senses and also with our emotions. Art can be a catharsis for many, and an inspiration to the conception of art as well.
EUNJUNGLEE
Hannah said...
Although I agree with aristotle's view of art and nature, I find that it cannot be applied to all artist and artwork. If artwork was solely based on his theory that art is based on the influences of nature, then cubism and pop art that have their own valued characteristics could not apply because they do not resemble aspects of nature or natural life. However, I do agree with aristotle over his view on fantasy in art. I think fantasy plays a large role for artist everywhere and stimulates the mind rather then corrupting it. - Hannah Ryu
I think that Aristotle's had good points when it came to art. #4 - "The way a great tragic play is organized to produce insight shows a logic that is scientific and purpose-driven by the writer or designer." Art (tragic play) that is purpose-driven, say, like Marylin Manson, mentioned above by Camilla, shows us what it's like to feel the way someone else feels. Marylin Manson writes his music not to gather an army of angry followers, but to express his feelings and let the listener into his world.
I agree with Camilla when she wrote "I like that Aristotle compared the way we learn to comprehend to the way we grow from infancy to mature thought." There is actually a lot I agree with. including but not limited to when he said art and fantasy can be used fro the good of the people. I love the idea that the one who creates a work of art can bring up emotions in the viewer that can allow them to grow.
Similar to the majority of the class, I agree with Aristotle's views. I can understand his views more so than Plato's. The point I agree with the most is his understanding of catharsis. Art can definitely be used as a form of therapy to release great emotion. It evokes an emotional reaction not only in the artist who creates it, but the viewer as well. I agree that art can be helpful and good in that sense of emotional reaction or "practical lesson".
I think it'd be really interesting to develop the topic of "art as therapy" further. To understand what it is about the process of doing art, as well as looking at art that helps to evoke that emotional response and enable people to heal from emotional traumas.
Aristotle viewed art as something to be used for good and I believe art is something that can be used for so many things beyond just what we think is an everyday art. For scientists to experiment and to create new medicine or for engineers to build a whole new motor in a vehicle to me is all an art in some respect. For medicine it might not be very visually pleasing or concepted to look beautiful but it was created in such a way as a painting (through experimenting, designing and ultimately creating). All around us we see art and it may not be the traditional way of thinking about art but I believe that anything can be determined as art. For example Andy Warhol made a famous design of soup, something that is not really that artistic per say but he found the beauty in it and brought it out in his design. We live in a world where a lot of people perceive art as something that is considered to be traditional paintings and what not but i believe art can be pretty much anything we see in todays world.
My favorite passage by Aristotle in this post is : 3. Just as we move from infancy and instinct toward adulthood and mature thought, so we see a similar evolution in humanities comprehension of art from instinct to patterned thought and logically guided form to evoke certain emotions and ideas.
We all juggle with this in our lives as artists. I am amazed at how I mature aesthetically over the last 4 years, liking one thing and two months later not liking it, and contemplating why I did in the first place. Knowing that my mind is still developing an artistic aesthetic, I wonder what I'll be into in my later years, maybe the same thing I was into when I was a child, because I think thats where we are truly happy. Maybe this is a re occurring pattern, enjoying and hating art that some how is not easily neglected in our lives. I know I could never not think about or want to see another basquiat painting.
I also agree with the majority of the class that Aristotle's views are more favorable to accept than Plato's. I think one of the reasons why that is the case is because he incorporated scientific knowledge and observation in drawing his conclusions. I agree with Travis that science doesn't have to be strictly mechanical, that the process of scientific discovery can be closely compared to an artistic experience. I think that it is unfortunate that often there is bias over art or science because they go hand in hand and have the potential to propel the other forward.
i also agree with aristotles views, personally it makes more sense since there is some what of a pattern to growth or something to follow or strive towards. it seems that an artists personal and intellectual growth is very much like its own life, within our life span
I also agree with many of Aristotles ideas. Him believing that artists can greatly benefit society (or the opposite) is very true and can be seen daily. Not only in works of art, music, dance, etc. - but even in advertising (I feel this being the biggest). Artists have an amazing gift in being able to influence others and express their thoughts in ways which many cannot.
FIKRIYE OZMERAL- GIBSON
i am delighted to hear about Aristotle's beliefs especially in comparison to plato. i find him much more pleasant and open minded to study. these lines that speaks about the cathartic situations powers to transform a human experience is very valuable to me also i agree deeply . i am impressed that he saw that the arts was capable of creating such strong emotions in human psyche . as that our experiences with art and fantasy also can be directed to be good and productive , these are really valid points and i agree with him on that also when i continued reading him i found this little tid bit that i have enjoyed thoroughly .
Where Aristotle differed most sharply from medieval and modern thinkers was in his belief that the universe had never had a beginning and would never end; it was eternal. Change, to Aristotle, was cyclical: water, for instance, might evaporate from the sea and rain down again, and rivers might come into existence and then perish, but overall conditions would never change.
what a great sustainable idea of a earth .
Art emulates nature: this simple statement was the most thought provoking for me because art and nature show so many of the same characteristis. 1 nature has a balence of order and chous. Art, in my mind, should display this to. The order rhat helps you understand the piece yet the chous to keep ur intrest. Nature might look choutic within the many trees and bushes..lights and darks, but trvel to the desert and it seems orderly and neat. 2 nature displays the golden role of 3eds..and as historians found so does coventional good art work. 3ed nature has beauty both in the ovious like the ocean or sunsets, but also in the distruction, like the bones of an animal, or the acene of a fallen or dead tree. Art can do this to. I find myself loving a quite portrait of a beautiful woman as pleasing as I do a painting of the reckes landscape or l.a in all in dirtist locations with taged walls and rusted buildings.
For me its that balence both art and nature share that make them so simular.
After reading this excerpt on Aristotle, I find that I agree more with his point of view on art than I agree with Plato. I think in being an observer rather than straight thinker, Aristotle has preludes the important fact of experiencing art rather than rationalizing it. However observation alone will not guarantee a good aesthetic experience and we do need to analyze and critique art as Plato's ideals suggest in the previous posts.
Art and fantasy can be beneficial in that they allow for imagination. Imagination can lead to innovation and that is what I think leads to great art and design that eventually shapes thinking or expands mindsets in society. Innovation is the only way that society seems to move forward in any aspect. Creating new ideas that are completely unique or are upgrades of old ideals can start in art and fantasy.
Art can influence people to feel a hundred different ways, but what the affected party does with those feelings is their own responsibility. A feeling of emotional release is quite possibly the best thing an artist can hope for, good or bad. It's only if a piece does not provoke any kind of emotional response that it has failed as artwork.
I find that Aristotle beliefs were easier to agree with. he is more open minded as apposed to plato and his beliefs.
i especially agree with his points about emotion and catharsis when it comes to art in every form. Art has the power to do many things, including healing.
i especially agree with his "3. Just as we move from infancy and instinct toward adulthood and mature thought, so we see a similar evolution in humanities comprehension of art from instinct to patterned thought and logically guided form to evoke certain emotions and ideas"
the more we learn and experience art in life the greater understanding we have. our preferences change, what we did not like as a child we have the ability to appreciate as an adult. i believe that things can have multiple meanings for an individual throughout their lifetime. Moving from dislike, to appreciating, to even being moved by it the next.
My theory is that there are definite patterns found in the most aesthetically pleasing things. In nature patterns seem to be more obvious (shells, leaf veins, flower petals, corn, our own bodies are symmetrical mirror images “ideally”) As far as artwork goes, I feel like artists who have been blessed with a great aesthetic eye subconsciously make artwork that follows some sort of pattern...even if it is a very subtle pattern. Those who have less of this natural talent can learn how to make a great composition through the study of nature. I am convinced that improving one’s site-vocabulary will naturally improve their aesthetic ability to create an amazing composition.
I fully agree with all the Aristotle's views in art, especially the the one he said "Nature is dynamic and designed for a purpose." it's undeniable that nature is the best designer, and nature is also the best resource and inspiration for designers.
I really enjoyed how Aristotle compared the artists creative intention to that of God like logic. I wonder if Aristotle would agree with the idea that in as much how artist are makers of objects they are also pioneers of consciousness- bringing to the forefront new paradigms of thought to humanity and therefor being creators of our own evolution. I do believe that no matter how far off. I like the idea of art emulating nature, if anything i believe that art and nature are inseparable no matter how much anyone attempts to distance themselves from it. I get the impression that Aristotle sees nature as a form of energy expressing itself, and I connect that with the act of making art as going forward and making marks that communicate an idea or form of energy to ourselves and others. Im not so sure if i can totally agree that music and art are emulating nature by being energy that is meant to move another emotionally. I think that this assumes that nature chooses to express itself, that it has an intention behind its "beingness". Getting into a personal ideology, I don't think that nature has a will, or desire to communicate with us. It does not differentiate like we do- it just is as it is, and it is us who cannot break out of that which we come from. If anything we are only using our own intellectual faculties to create relations with nature. We only have that which we know to grasp our deviations from.
I enjoyed reading Aristotle's view on art it seams as though he understood the artist perspective a lot better than Plato. Although Plato was his mentor Aristotle chose to form his own opinions on the world around him. I think that is one of the most important things in our society today many people choose to fallow in someones foot steps instead of forming there own path and it hinders creativity.
I really enjoyed hearing Aristotle's insights about how art can be an outlet for grief and painful memories in your life, and is a catharsis in that way. He does a good job talking about the different aspects of art and describes the artist as they are, a creator and shape-maker.
Dear thinkers,
From your many positive comments on Aristotle it is clear that he offered posterity the richest views of aesthetics. His ideas shaped the direction of subsequent generations of thinking on art and aesthetic perception. I appreciate your willingness to engage in our discussion.
Bill
More well rounded than his teacher, it would see like Aristotle would hope for that in his students too. taking what is know and probing it for a new ideas and realizations. I really enjoy his forward thinking and his ability to give credit to all forms of art and recognize that there are still forms of art that have yet to be formed. He is extremely optimistic, hopeful of future human endeavors in the world of imagination and creation.
Post a Comment