In different times and in different places and in different context Art critiques, thinkers have made efforts to understand the underlying essence of a piece of Art.
Most were limited to their own times and philosophy of the world and human persons.
Fortkochi, Kerala |
They
were at finding ‘necessary
conditions’ and ‘sufficient conditions’
for the truth of the statement that an item is an ‘art work’.
We go back to the first of such an attempt.
It was the Greeks who first said, Art is Imitation of nature.
And they broadened it saying, Art is Representation.
Study the PDF below.
(to be used for educational purposes only)
Most art we do and we encounter on a day today basis are all imitation of nature. Those who are able to do it best are the best artists.
What makes them to be candidates for Art is the attribute of Verisimilitude they posses. More similar they are better they are appreciated.
Nothing is an artwork, unless it is an imitation.
For Plato and Aristotle, to be an artwork requires that the piece in question be an imitation of something. That is, being an imitation—of a person, place, object, action or event.
So plato emphasised that Art is Imitation, Mirroring nature, copying nature.
Plato went a step ahead and claimed that as is also
1. useless
2. deceptive
3. potentially dangerous
1. Art is useless because art unlike philosophy does not produce any new knowledge. Art is the reflection of the reflection of reality (world of ideas).
2. Art is deceptive because, Artists were unconcerned with facts/truth (as against philosophers). It made no difference to artists nor to the success of their works whether the images or stories they depict were real or their messages true or good.
3. Art is dangerous because, art feeds the senses/appetite and that begins to control the mind and spirit. Instead for plato the mind and spirit must control the appetitive.
Aristotle enters the discourse.
Aristotle agreed that art was essentially Mimesis.
But, he maintained, (good) art was neither useless and deceptive nor dangerous, but rather natural and beneficial.
Aristotle Rejected that Mimesis is mere Mirroring of Nature
Art is the outcome of a mental process
Unlike mirroring, these are acts of intellect.
Therefore good art puts forward ideal truths. (what something aught to be)
Aristotle also claimed that art is not dangerous but cathartic and therapeutic
Aristotle offers a broader theory of Art:
Art
as Representation
Aristotle reconstructed Imitation theory to Representation theory
Representation happens by
1. Resemblance
2. Illusion
But Problem still surfaced. Even with this additional breadth, the representational theory of art remains not sufficient, since much of what is called art is not representational.
How do we add these too to the ambit of art?
This problem gave rise to an advanced representation theory, called
The neo-representational theory of art. According to the neo-representational theory of art,
anything that is a work of art necessarily possesses the property of ‘aboutness’
It must have semantic (meaning) content.
It has a subject about which it expresses something.
We can take the case of Duchamp's ready-mades.
Duchamp’s ready-mades (urinal, snow shovel etc.) demand interpretations. It makes sense to ask what they are about.
On the other hand, it does not make sense to ask what ordinary urinals and snow shovels are about. Ordinary urinals and snow shovels are not about anything;
They have no semantic (meaning) content; they are mute—meaningless. They also do not imitate or represent anything else.
Comments
Post a Comment