The 18th century was an era of passionate publishing. All over Europe aesthetic thinkers produced books and articles on aesthetic themes following the social focus on art that was unleashed in the 17th century. Printing books was a common practice in this time so that students could own or borrow a textbook; it was an age of information and the subject of what art should be was perhaps never more relevant and intensely discussed then between 1700 and 1800.
The most influential aesthetic thinking in the 18th century was centered in Britain, Italy and France. John Locke, Shaftsbury, Addison, Hutcheson, Kames, Hume, Reid, Burke Hogarth and Reynolds in England produced compelling articles. I will overview them in this Post. But before looking at the English thinkers we should have a partial listing of Italian and French writers to add to the British contingent. Vico, Gravian in Italy held much sway in the art community while in France- Dubos, Condillac, Diderot and Rousseau carried the most serious attention. Obviously the British had the largest and most compelling legion of aesthetic thinkers.
In summarizing the trend of thought in this era one leading idea can be discerned. Put simply it is: Beauty is a social sense shared by an enlightened majority and that it is constructive and appreciative in nature and function.
There was an appreciation of Plotinus in this era with a blend of Plotinus' spirituality balanced by rational methodology. A prominent saying in this respect was that "Beauty is conquered chaos", that beauty and virtue in art and society are constructive and instructive. It was believed that lasting beauty was a form of insight and teaching was essential in perceiving it. Joshua Reynolds as head of the British Academy of Art said that "there is no art without rules" and that "the enduring things of nature"-- not flux and irrationality-- "are the things meant for the canvas."
From the spiritual side of the discussion the idea first stated by Plato was picked up and expanded in the 18th century. The stress was on the social value of art as a moral agent. Addison in Britain said that "Beauty is God's precaution against our indifference" and that "the pleasures of our imagination should be moralistic, reflective and religious."
Hume who was not religious still stressed the cognitive aspects of the arts and said that "emotion and learned sentiment are the paths by which beauty comes to us" and that taste can be taught and even analyzed. We can sense in these British thinkers the rational and ethical mood of the time. We can recall that the American Constitution was drafted in this era and that it too contains strong universal belief in human progress and social conscience. Beauty like freedom required deep contemplation and widespread knowledge so that its practitioners would be capable of upholding tradition and at the same time expand into new realms of discovery.
The Italian and French aesthetic thinkers paralleled the British thinkers and spoke of "the moral bearing of imagination", the importance of "distanced and tactful judgment" in the practice of art, of "art as a balm for the human spirit", of art and "imagination as distinctly human behavior" separating humankind from the animals, that taste like all forms of knowledge is taught. Diderot for instance said that "beauty is a relation of the inner sense and the mind.
Rousseau at the end of the era tried to break away from the rational mood of the era and said that nature is about feeling not knowledge. But the vast majority of thinkers of the age saw a balance of feeling and thinking reflected in art. In the end it is Aristotle with his balanced views of art who seems to have had the most lasting impact on the 18th century overall.
25 comments:
The first man who had fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ”
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754
I was reading about Rousseau and came across this quote which i think is the cream of the cake . I agree with this specific quote immensely . The freedom to be able to own and read your own material is I believe is the greatest achievement of this time. Which led to Age of Enlightenment , reason was what gave people credibility . as Rousseau questioned nationalism with his quote just above, having the opportunity to question and be able to make up your own mind . this i find it incredibly valuable .
FIKRIYE OZMERAL-GIBSON
Addison said " the pleasures of our imagination should be moralistic, reflective and religious." This makes sense for the time period, but I'm not sure that I believe that. Imagination leads us to a new world that is not always safe and art often reflects that. In this essay I read Humes believes taste can be taught. I am not sure if this is true. I do believe that as we gain knowledge our taste grows and may even change. A certain aesthetic taste should not be pushed on anyone.
It's a little amazing to grow up listening to the ideas of art as self expression, as pure emotion, as most important as an individuals expressive piece and then read discussions like this. I can see how this idea of art as a tool for educating society and taste could lead to the idea of art as propaganda.
I agree with the implication that perhaps beauty is a relation of the inner sense and mind. Beauty can really only exist within the individual and its objectification changes from person to person. Beauty and virtue as being constructive and instructive makes me think of art as objective and subjective. The constructive being the object and the instructive being relayed through the subject.
Art was so powerful during this era because it had a way of effectively communicating ideas to all people, regardless of class or status. I really don't agree with the statement that there exists a moral bearing of imagination. But put into the proper context of the time period, I can see how cautious the artist had to be with his work.
thought the idea of beauty and virtue from the blend of Plotinus spirituality and methodology was very interesting and insightful from this article. I agree that the idea of beauty and virtue is a form of insight and teaching.I think it is a very complex idea because people everywhere can perceive beauty differently. However, Just as taste can be enhanced or taught, i believe beauty can be taught as well. Similar to how taste can be taught and even analyzed. I believe beauty is a form of knowledge Diderot quotes, "beauty is a relation of the inner sense and the mind".
-Hannah Ryu
fikriye ozmeral gibson
this specific time falls into when Goya lived to paint the third of many in 1814. peoples aesthetics views were greatly changing because of what they were seeing around them constantly at this time . even though we see a great jump on the literacy we also see revolutions leading into wars and massacres at this time . we see clearly what Goya has seen in his series of the disasters of wars painted between 1810 to 1820 - depicting the events of the peninsular war . i personally find it quite satisfactory to see the royal painter appointed by the throne to paint atrocities that he cannot bear to ignore . also at this time jean jack rousseau has also have stated the following which is "The first man who had fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754
Even thought people could probably be conditioned to believe something is beautiful, I do not agree that beauty is a form of insight or teaching. I feel like that people can often times be born with a certain taste or feeling that is inherited. Many people can argue that something is more beautiful than another. When we watched that video closer to the beginning of the semester about the faces and symmetry it seemed as though they figured out a way to measure beauty which seemed to work in certain aspects when it comes to a human face but I do not think there is something that will work like that with a piece of art. Anything can be cool and from going to art shows, there are people with all kinds of tastes that buy things that i think are completely horrible but they find it completely beautiful because there seems to be some kind of inner connection that goes beyond the beauty at face value.
I found the most compelling quote in this post to be "Beauty is a social sense shared by an enlightened majority and that is constructive and appreciative in nature and function." The way I interpret this quote is that as a society we have a general collective perception of what beauty is and is not. For example, more often than not, individuals are able to agree on what makes a person attractive or unattractive. The same idea is applied that while of course there is room for variation, overall beauty tends to be universal.
"Beauty is conquered chaos",this statement still holds true today when creating an image that is meant to evoke feeling through translation of beauty the artist is participating in a juggling act not only trying to address all formal concerns but content, subject matter and approach all affect the aesthetic qualities of a piece of work. its like trying to carefully pour a waterfall through a funnel
Beauty is a social understanding of the world around them. People may look at a scene of death and destruction that goes on for miles and take a small piece of the composition and organize the elements so that it reads. This to me is a good example of beauty as conquered chaos and social constructivism in that the artist takes the chaotic scene in front of him and reconciles it on paper as he is trying to cope with what had just happened and will help others to understand as well. Not to say that the scene of the battle is beautiful but to illustrate the process in which seems to make sense to me as far as these concepts go.
" Beauty is a social sense shared by an enlightened majority and that it is constructive and appreciative in nature and function." I thought a lot about this one line. At first i wanted to fight it and say not all great art is made by enlightened people, i wanted to say " what about children's art, that is so honest and pure? they haven't gone thru and enlightenment?" but then i thought, children art humans at their purest, and religiously speaking , are closer to god in their innocence and where they are in life, so why count them out, some forms of enlightenment do come from a relationship with "your god of your choice ." But back to the main line " Beauty is a social sense shared by an enlightened majority and that it is constructive and appreciative in nature and function." In the past semester art has been defined with the word beauty often . And i do agree, to find beauty in anything, we must exknowlage the nature of what it is we consider beautiful and what function it plays in our life. but to even think out the nature of beauty and its functions does take a bit of enlightenment on the viewers part.
While I believe that in general society tends to have a collective perception as to what is beauty and what is not, I don't think that is true when it comes to artwork. Like Travis says, sometimes you may perceive something as beautiful in art that other people may not find aesthetically pleasing at all. I feel that art is subjective and that meaning and beauty exist within our own selves. Everyone perceives art differently.
I believe beauty and taste are heavily influenced by the individual; by their mind, imagination, environment, etc. A lot of out previous discussions have talked about beauty in nature, which is relatively universal because it surrounds us all and effects people in a similiar sense. But I don't believe the individual sense of beauty stops there; it turns inward and from there becomes a unique and specific reflection of the life and mind of each of us, growing from universal conditions of humanity and natural surroundings. I agree with Brett that to pigeon hole imagination within religious realms is limiting and almost wrong. I do think that concepts of beauty will vary between individuals and individual societies while at the same time here are base levels we can all agree on, like the video we watched about symmetry of the "beautiful" face through all cultures and everyone can admit to being moved by beauty in nature. But there are tribes in Africa that stretch their necks or part of their ears because among their society of people, it is considered beautiful, while here in certain conservative realms, taken out of context, it might be thought of as self mutilation. To each his own, in some cases.
I strongly disagree with the idea that things like flux and irrationality are not meant for the canvas. Although I agree with Kristi that as artists we try and "conquer" this chaos in order to make a beautiful image, it is my belief that chaos itself can at times be beautiful and that flux is part of the normal cycle of nature that allows for logic and beauty. Post-modernism is an example where art was often created to embrace this chaos instead of trying to hide or contain it.
I agree with Aristotle and his balanced views on art with feeling and thinking. I think the passion for art and the love of creating takes that feeling and motivates someone to create a work of art.
Knowledge helps push and expands what you create. Technique, philosophy and just general world knowledge can also inspire you to create something amazing.
It definitely takes a balance to create a communicative piece that reaches the viewer and relays a message whether it be emotions or propaganda.
After reading this article, I am compelled to agree with the common used saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" however there are some good points brought up that offset this view. First, I agree with what Averi said, to paraphrase, true beauty is only seen from person to person. One thing of beauty to one person may not be considered beautiful to another. However, there is a sentence in this reading that "Beauty is a social sense shared by an enlightened majority and that is constructive and appreciative in nature and function". This is how the article sums up reasoning trending from these thinkers during this time period. I can see how a society can label things as beautiful or not, however, I don't agree that it should be the final straw on how people perceive the arts.
I like the interpretation of Rousseau that nature is best identified through feelings rather than a rationalization of structured knowledge. Its like trying to fit a geometrical net over an experience, we can get a close approximation with careful study and deliberate intentions, but we will always fall short of the thing sought after. Instead of putting our attention at that which this complex system was built to understand, we end up arguing over the symbols and reflections this separate system has sprouted. Its like sitting underneath a tree, enjoying its shade and wanting to take a photo of this event so that one can later remember and reflect on it. But to do this we have to step back and leave the comfortable shade, we put ourselves in a contrasting situation in order to capture this moment. I think that a lot of what aesthetic aims at does just this, makes one step outside of oneself to experience a situation from a different perspective. As much as I think thats its important to read what the great minds of our collective society have written about life, art, and the ideas of taste; nothing beats sitting underneath that tree and experiencing on ones own accord the breeze that carries with it all the information that one needs to know that it feels nice.
i dont think i quite agree with the idea that beauty can taught. everyone has their own individual taste for things. what i find beautiful may not be the same to you.
but i do love the quote. "emotion and learned sentiment are the paths by which beauty comes to us" different emotions or different experience make be tied together with certain aspects of a piece in question. for example, i love Miyazaki movies because of his great storytelling and characters. what really draws me to his work is that their are typically a young girl who appears to be weak but is forced to go through hardships and obstacles and then realize that they were strong enough all along.
this sparks my interest because of my own childhood, i find many parallels with his characters.
but others might like his work for other reasons entirely different from my own
After reading the section by Tolstoy in the textbook, I can appreciate how important it is to examine the purpose of art in its entire context and not only through the lens of beauty. Tolstoy said, "...To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movement, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling-- this is the activity of art..." Taking that definition into account, I think a piece of art could be incredibly powerful whether or not it is pleasing to the eye, as human experiences are not always pleasing.
First off, I love that you called this an age of information as we often call our own age an age of information or technology. The printing press was a huge step of technological advancement of this time and made information much more mobile and accessible just as the internet and smart devices of our era has done.
"Beauty is a social sense shared by an enlightened majority and that it is constructive and appreciative in nature and function."
I'm not too sure I can agree with this thought of Aesthetics of the era. I see that education and prolonged thought is emphasized at this period of time and might be the reason why the thinkers had such a categorical view of what beauty is. The need to define it as a sense shared by a majority in my opinion hinders the ability for someone to think openly.
It is fascinating that Joshua Reynolds believed that “there is no art without rules.” It seems like the opposite is true today. Curators and art collectors often believe that it is the artist’s job to break rules and push the boundaries. The same is true with morality and tactful judgment in contemporary art. It seems that a large portion of art created today tries to break down these expectations and show controversial imagery. In the future I would love to see more artists focus on morals.
"Beauty is conquered chaos" I love this idea that man can have such ultimate control over his environment to conquer chaos and create beauty all within the realm of Christianity, where God is the ultimate creator.
Humes' idea that "emotion and learned sentiment are the paths by which beauty comes to us" is a great contradiction to the previous idea. removing the mythology from the philosophy, witch i always appreciate.
I like "the moral bearing of imagination." it gives the artist allot of social responsibility. witch i believe is important to art in general because it gives the creation of art allot more validity.
To better understand the importance of beauty and aesthetics during this time period we have to understand the influence of the British Empiricists. In particular the idea which placed direct experience as the foundation of human knowledge and ideas as opposed to the older schools that believed in innate ideas and notions. What that meant to the artist was that anything they created would have an influential effect on their audience. If only by simply existing and being viewed let alone analyzing the subject matter. Thus the artist would then have the responsibility of creating something that was socially constructive and responsible.
Animals are capable of imagination - exhibited in play-acting of imaginary scenarios and shows of spontaneous creativity that can be seen in dolphins, elephants, and various great apes. So scientifically speaking at least, imagination is not something that makes humans unique. We are, however, extremely good at it - and indeed it's that imagination that allows us to think abstract and to adapt to the degree that we have. In any case, I think that we should not look for 'what separates us from the animals' - because we are evolutionarily related, after all. Instead we should be looking for what makes us similar, and how close we are. It's almost a 'glass is half full' approach to understanding how we relate to other creatures on the planet, and our place in the world. Something that people less familiar with evolution might balk at - because to be so 'close' in relation to animals is horrifying to them.
I like to think this aversion may have partly been reinforced by how poorly slave-based societies treat human beings...but those human beings are of course fed the myth that they aren't animals and therefore they still are better off than say, a dog. Start applying the label of 'animal' to people out out-groups you don't care for and you can see how this might be a major problem where humanity's interest in advancement through cooperation might be concerned.
Post a Comment