In the centuries following Aristotle, Roman and early Christian thinkers took a great interest in art and added rich detail to Aristotle's probing insights into aesthetic experience.
Two of the best known Roman era thinkers were probably Greek trained philosophers: Plotinus and Theophrastus who provided us with great descriptions of the techniques of art-making and of art's more mystical potential. Aristoxenus offered innovative insight into the nature of music and composition theory. Because of the prevalence of Stoic Philosophy which promoted restraint and self-mastery the general mood of aesthetic thought in this era promoted mastery of the materials of art and of artistic restraint.
Most important of all was a growing sense of history itself and the history of aesthetic thought as it had evolved. There was as part of this historical consciousness a rediscovery of Aristotle's writings. Cicero the great conscience of his age saw the excess and weakness of a declining Roman culture and spoke out against the arena where wanton bloodshed and the wholesale slaughter of humans and animals was offered as entertainment. He also reminded readers of the more heroic qualities of the best of Greek and Roman literature along with the moral values promoted. Plutarch thought deeply about a cult of ugliness in vogue in the art of his time.
Longinus like Aristotle, believed that great style in art springs from an artist's inner-greatness and requires humane character and inner strength. Chrysostom added to Longinus and believed that art is the revealing of the artist's vision--the more splendid and sublime the vision the more compelling the artistic expression. Plotinus a Christian thinker having studied many art forms and techniques believed that Beauty is the projection of love onto perception and that the impulse to love what is experienced is a "metaphysical homesickness". He believed our love of the external world of beauty in nature and art is a mystical/spiritual urge to return to God and a Heavenly Home. What Plato had called the Realm of Perfect Forms and Ideals-- Plotinus understood as a true and final home in Eternity with the Divine Creator.
36 comments:
i agree with Longinus and the idea that great style (which i see as positive impact on the viewer in art) comes from an artists character,along with other factors . . . an artist makes conscious & unconcious choices what to put in their work and what to leave out, if they mindfully make these choices it shows in their work
Longinus and Chrysostom both had ideas I agree with. I feel an artists style does derive from an artists character and views, which in turn determines our methods. I don't feel it's possible for two artists to ever have the same style even if they lived identical lives. Everyone sees the world differently and from that many forms of expression can be created. I think that's one of the most amazing things about art.
FIKRIYE OZMERAL-GIBSON
i really enjoy the research that happens after i read the new post in the blog. i look into roman empire and philosophy than to plotinus then when god is started in the human psyche and i ended up reading an immense amount of articles that is quite interesting . so thank you for that .
the roman philosophers were educated by the enslaved greek thinkers therefore we do see great resemblance's between the greek to roman passage yet , the idea of a divine creator appears in this specific time but not with plotinus. when he did emerge with his ideas about the " the one " the persians were already practicing a religion that is in great resemblance to christianity-called Mithraism . since there were many ideas about a divine god floating in the area at this specific time i don't want to give credit to plotinus for his ideas even though they are incredibly zen and beatiful , but rather Longinus for his aristotle like ideas . especially that he believed that great style in art springs from an artist's inner greatness and requires humane character and inner strength. this i found worth noting .
After reading this post i felt like it directly related to the introduction of the second part of the aesthetics book called "why identify anything as art." Longinus just like the guy in the aesthetics book believes that a great style springs from an artist's inner greatness however that has been a very controversial theory. I believe that people can be great artists and it doesnt really depend on what kind of person they are. However, I do believe an artist has to have a vision or an ultimate outcome of what they think is going to come out of it.
Thank you each for responding to the post we are off to a good start. I will comment on Fikriye's note on Plotinus as it raises some questions about dates and views of God.
Plotinus was born in 204 A.D. and died in 269 A.D. so he was in Italy well into the Christian era. Gilbert and Kuhn 1972, Tell us that he studied Persian, Greek, Byzantine and Roman/Christian writings (aa Fikeiye also noted.)
One of his important ideas-- that art was a sacred homesickness is certainly Christian and deeply personal. We find it in all of the important Gospel sources. St. Paul --'Absent from the body and present with the Lord" Jesus--"In my father's house are many mansions" etc.
We know very little about the mystery religions that were also practiced in Plotinus's time--- because they were highly secretive-- so it is not possible to credit them in any significant way as direct influences on Plotinus. The important thing is to note the general tenor of thought of an individual where the likely of his or her thinking arises. But as Frikriye noted being a well-read man Plotinus took ideas from many sources and for that insight we salute her for her strong interest and follow up.
Warm Regards,
Bill
I agree mostly with Longinus as in that great art comes from a strong spirited artist. Chrysostom had a point in saying that an artist's vision is shown in their work, but as with all these philosophies I see a great bias toward beauty and what qualifies as beautiful. Yes there is great art that speaks to the non-violent, more philosophical nature of man that has been done with great vision. But artists have also had the role of portraying truth and the ugliness of mankind. The two philosophers Cicero and Plutarch were right in bringing forth these imperfections of mankind and reflecting on them. They need to be seen and studied just as well as the beauty in nature and the goodwill of society.
Aside from this point, Plotinus hit on a key factor in what the aesthetic experience does for the audience. It can bring back a sense of nostalgia and "homesickness" for both the religious and secular type. I think art at this time was used mainly to support visions of transcendence, or as Plato would put it the "realm of perfect forms" as the divine was of great influence in the era. I am also guessing that art was turning toward more of a mystical and symbolic nature as artists were translating abstract thoughts and ideals.
"Beauty is the projection of love onto perception"
I completely agree with this statment as I believe the concept of what is beautiful can only be found in one's perception of beauty.
I think Fikriye did us all a service by giving an insight to the history of spirituality and philosophy inthe time of Plotinus. It helps keep better perspective when considering their concept of aesthetics and art.
Plotinus' argument on art having a mystical potential may have a religious bias but I think any serious artist won't deny that there isn't some kind of connection to their art and throughout their art-making process. There is an unspoken connection between what an artist truly feels but its a relationship, conversation being spoken throughout the process of it all. And maybe that's what Plotinus' is talking about in a sense, where we as artists are constantly having conversations with our work and questioning and creating our meaning of 'beauty' and self, is in fact a conversation with a Greater being. Its our longing/our" urge." And when we are able to connect, and reach into our inner-greatness, a great style emerges as Longius mentions. But reaching that inner greatness is the challenge in my opinion because we need to be constantly seeking for the truth.
EUNJUNGLEE
Plotinus may have believed that artists interested in capturing the beauty of the world around us were subconsciously trying to reach up into heaven-- but the world around us is already quite perfect in it's form and function. There is much beauty in nature and the golden ratio, so are we not already in this so-called heaven? Our "love of the experienced" is constantly repeated as we live our lives. It seems to me the only way to improve is to omit the negative experiences.
I enjoyed reading this post, and agree with the quote that “art is the revealing of the artist's vision.” Whether it is subconscious or a work of art is created with a specific thought in mind, it reflects our thoughts and ideas. Chrysostom thought that the more splendid the vision the more compelling the artist's expression, yet art is so subjective so it will vary with each person. A piece can say many different things and I think that is wonderful about art, because no matter what, it evokes an emotion or feeling, and that is the purpose of what art should do.
Longinus' ideas on how the quality of art is determined by the artist's vision is something I have pondered on since I have started attending LCAD. Lance Richlin in my defense said to a woman, surprised at how normal I look and how weird my art is, "true artists have a visions unique themselves and art school is only here to help them develop their skills to help them show their vision to others." I feel that his statement is along the lines of what Longinus is trying to say. I understand it as artists are first thinkers and one with their imaginations then they learn how to show the world their vision through technical skill.
It was really interesting getting a third perspective on aesthetics this week. While I did not strongly agree with any of the views described, I did find it interesting to hear that philosophers disagreed with the violent Roman traditions that were going on during their time. Plotinus had very different views on why people make art, but I feel that his views are only true for a select group of people.
Samantha
Willson
The notion that beauty is a project of love was very interesting. That we love to experience beauty and that experience is what prompts us to create art, and that the creation of art in an act of love. Longinus says "our love of the external world of beauty in nature and art is a mystical/spiritual urge to return to God"
Whether or not you believe in a creator or whatever form of God you believe in, I think we can all agree that our thirst to create art stems from a need to express or create meaning, to visually represent a feeling or experience that was profound in some way, wether it be love, beauty, or tragedy.
(Aristotle, believed that great style in art springs from an artist's inner-greatness and requires humane character and inner strength.)
The psychology of an artist is an odyssey, I bet there are some great books on the subject. But I think as an artist we practice things that build our "inner strength" like the type of music and books we read etc. , this definitely has an impact on my work. It would be interesting to understand the cause and effect of why we produce the things we do. Why we fixate on producing an image, why are we insistent on showing the public this image we created?
Although I didn't relate to these views as much as Aristotle's, I do agree with Longinus and Chrysostom with the idea that "art is the revealing of the artist's vision". It is the artist's choices and own "inner-greatness" that makes the piece of work.
Artists do not have the same style because they have had different aesthetic experiences and interpret the world they live in differently. Art enables the artist to portray their own interpretation of the world around them, and it allows the viewer to experience a different perception that they may not usually see. I find this to be one of the most fascinating things about art.
Aristotals comment in order to create art one my have be in touch with inner self is somthing I highy relate too. The art I find most rewarding is that I put my sole into,my inner self. Its the art I fine never as a tast but pure injoyment. Althouth im an illustrator and often create for a cliant, I injoy that I can creat what they cant, does it mean I injoy that art, not all the time. I keep a balance, I am a true artist when I create for myself . I create for clients to have the money it takes to servive, and a bit for the the joy of helping another.
I am particularly interested in Cicero's speaking out against the Roman gladiatorial arenas. After poking around, apparently he was eventually murdered for opposing Mark Anthony, and accepted his assault by posing in a gladiatorial submission baring his neck. Ironic that he died unresisting and in a gladiatorial posture no less. His hands were cut off after he was killed, and his hands which had written against Mark Anthony were pinned up. Viewed in modern context this is extremely chilling, and is a rather horrible example of oppression of free thought & speech. Mark Antony's wife even took his decapitated head, pulled out his tongue, and jabbed with a hairpin.
To me this is a rather terrifying historical example of how much those greedy for power and control despise free speech and dissent. Right now the Libyan government is engaged in a brutal war against its own people - bombing runs with fighter jets, executions of soldiers who refuse to fire on civillians at random, and foreign mercenaries from northern Africa paid to kill people - especially doctors.
These past few weeks have given me a lot to think about with regards to the absolute utmost importance of freedom of speech, and the great seething contempt that tyrants have for people who dare to speak against their prescribed version of reality. So it is hard for me to not look back at Cicero's fate and recognize that the same kind of greed and sadistic malice motivating the slaughter of a dissenter also motivates the petty tyrants of today, and what we see now is merely a human legacy of that greed.
“metaphysical homesickness” –what a strong and wonderful way of putting it. Um, ...I definitely have a feeling of a spiritual realm when I see beautiful images AND I get a definite homesick feeling when I see a magnificent landscape like a full moon in a pitch black sky, a mountain peak from the view of an airplane, a sunset on the ocean but one with all of the colors. Its kind of the idea that everyone has their own “double rainbow” (a double rainbow referring to the youtube phenomenon that has been coined –meaning a beautiful aesthetic, so beautiful it brings one to tears of joy>> check it out>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSNhk5ICTI)
Of all the Philosophers I found Longinus idea " that great style in art springs from an artists inner-greatness and requires humane character and inner strength" to be the most interesting. I also agree with what Danielle Brown said in her blog " Everyone sees the world differently and from that many forms of expression can be created."
"Inner-greatness and strength" described as the root of great style in art makes a lot of sense. Being a designer, bold/strong/confident design is key. If you second-guess yourself to much, you begin to see things incorrectly. I also agree with Chrysostom that, "art is the revealing of the artist's vision." The more time I spend on a concept, and the more developed my concepts are, that is when I make my very best work. There is something to say about art not being just about making a pretty picture. When people say "aesthetically" they usually are talking about purely the appearance of something, but I think "aesthetics" as a term should have a much deeper meaning than just appearance.
Plotinus' "Beauty is the projection of love.." - just that bit, got my attention. We find what we love to be beautiful, thus aesthetically pleasing. We can love something ugly and it becomes beautiful to us because of that personal connection. And, basically, ditto to what Averi wrote.
This was an interesting article, although I did not agree with it fully. I think that Longinus had a good point when he stated that artist's greatest style springs from within. I believe that every artist has a core of inspiration that inspires them to create art. However, I do not fully agree with Plato's case on perfect form. In Plato's case, in order for something to be real, it had to be permanent and unchanging. Therefore, perfection and reality were closely related. I do not think everything needs to be permanent or unchanging for it to be considered real. Especially in art everything plays a role whether it exists or not.
-Hannah Ryu
I thought Longinus had some interesting opinions, honestly i don't think an artist inner-greatness even exist, inner vision maybe...I think people enjoy a craft and catch on faster than others when it comes to draftsmanship.
I enjoyed and agreed with the quote "art is the revealing of the artist's vision--the more splendid and sublime the vision the more compelling the artistic expression"
I think the one I most agreed with was Plotinus. Even though I'm not religious, I personally I love the world around us and I believe that heaven is what ever we want it to be since each of us has our own personal idea of what beauty is. Everything in art is up to our own interpretation.
"Beauty is the projection of love onto perception and that the impulse to love what is experienced."
I agree with Longinus in the fact that great style in art springs from an artist's inner-greatness and requires humane character and inner-strength. I think that what drives an artist is their experiences and internal processing. These life experiences lead to the artistic vision and the experiences, though often subtle lend to a compelling artistic vision that a viewer can then process and interpret for themselves.
I agree with both Longinus and Chrysostom in a lot of their views. It was interesting to hear how the barbaric nature of entertainment of that time bears similarities in which they way we view and value entertainment now. I also love the quote, "beauty is the projection of love onto perception." I believe this also applies to the artist and his art. The artists thoughts and ideas are the projection of his love for creating and simply the application of brush on paper.
DEAR ALL,
This chain of thinking, responding to the ideas of fellow students is rich and free-flowing which the best of education must be.
We live in an age where aesthetic values are often overlooked and a good discussion is the essence of dynamic hence diversely harmonious aesthetic learning.
Our blog, RAD, partner presentation process are intended to teach us every step of the way about our subject--- namely intensifying our Aesthetic Awareness.
Bravo!
Bill
I have always loved the idea of seeing art as an interpretation of mystical energies. i think this view correlates with that of Plotinus views of a "metaphysical homesickness"- that that which we seek is what is compelling us towards it. In this realm all of knowledge is already present within us, we only need to tend to our own inner garden and watch the answers sprout its leaves to be warmed by the bright sun of our consciousness.
If art springs from a person's inner greatness and humane character, does that mean that person who is lacking in greatness or in humanity can't produce art? Can we stop looking at product to decide if it's art and start looking at the artist? How do you measure inner greatness, is it in the quality of art that you produce? Is a humane character a moral character? Do you have to be a decent person to be a great artist? This would destroy quite a selection of modern artists if so, a lot of the time being an artist seems to make you immune to criticism for bad behavior, at least in the history books. So why can't someone who's a really good person always paint really well? Are they just lacking in "inner greatness" or is there a third element of technical skill that wasn't mentioned here?
I like that description, "metaphysical homesickness" as well. I wouldn't go as far as to agree with Jung that we all have a collective unconscious of shared symbols from birth, but I think that exists somewhat on an individual level with each person gathering a bank of lines, shapes, and colors throughout life that they can recognize emotionally. If we have an emotional memory from childhood of a certain landscape for example, and we see a similar setup later on even if it's a certain shadow shape on some trees or something, it could invoke a pleasing, nostalgic feeling.
Also, to respond to Heather, I don't think necessarily your art has to reflect your moral character, but it definitely reflects some aspect of your character, for example in the subject matter of what you choose to create, or the process in which you create it. For example, a person can be completely proficient at drawing but never finish any kind of creative work because of lack of ambition in their character.
In a time of lose morals and human indecency towards other men the best roman thinkers did as there great ancestors in philosophy did and took the higher moral ground, almost signal handily saving the history of philosophical debate for generations to come. though they were unable to save the roman empire form its collapse into ugliness and eventual demise. As for art the continuation of the idealized form gave the philosophers little to expand on, other than the greatness of form and awe in what the creator has bestowed upon us, though simultaneously there society did as much as they could to mutilate fellow men, for entertainment and for conquer.
Post a Comment