On page 106, Hume says that great poets like Homer were praised in the time they were writing and are still highly praised today. Perhaps even more highly regarded because of their longevity. There are countless works of art that we understand to be great coming from their time and because they have stood the test of time.
My question is, what if Homer's Iliad and Odyssey had been written not thousands of years ago, but in this day and age? Disregarding that literature would be very different because of it, and assuming they were written as exactly the same pieces, how would we react? How would we react according to Hume's logic?
I think one would first have to establish more ground rules for this thought. I think that a few of the biggest reasons that the Iliad and Odyssey are so revered are the fact that they taught lessons, and captivated the cultural essence of their times. They were also very original and groundbreaking works. I think the literary mastery was icing on the cake, so, to answer the question, they may not be as renowned today if they were published tomorrow.
With that being said, more appropriately, it would be a question one could not answer. Simply because of the fact that they catered to the culture of their specific time, and were highly original. If we were to contemplate their entry into the world of art today, wouldn't they be skimming of the works of a few other bodies of literature, at the very least? Would it be slightly odd to right about the beliefs and stories that no one really holds today? And if not, how would we take it at face value? As a cultural fingerprint or merely entertainment? I think it would be difficult to recreate a scenario like that in our minds, but if we were, and under the assumption that they were the precedent to any other works that were to be built off of them, I would say, that Hume would think the true value of the art would show, and over time, at least, the world would accept the art for what it was, and is.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
How would Hume defend his idea of a universal taste to cultural and societal evolution?
Hume offers a quite satisfying explanation for the changes of taste or judgement over time, by saying that these changes were not specifically correct judgments in the first place. He can accredit the aesthetic value to a work of art, but says that these fads will come and go over time, and that time alone will reveal the true art, and the true critics.
"Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. Aristotle, and Plato, and Epicurus, and Descartes, may successively yield to each other: But Terence and Virgil maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men" (Hume, 110).
Hume explains that we will always have art of passion and significance, and they will succeed each other over time, yet true works of merit will stand the test of time. He states later, that this especially proves to be true when some significant works with both aesthetic appeal and true value are created; one part eventually falls away, yet the other, remains, an aspect of praise. This is a very good example of how Hume would distinguish what is truly good art.
"The abstract philosophy of Cicero has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration" (Hume, 110).
"Just expressions of passion and nature are sure, after a little time to gain public applause, which they maintain for ever. Aristotle, and Plato, and Epicurus, and Descartes, may successively yield to each other: But Terence and Virgil maintain an universal, undisputed empire over the minds of men" (Hume, 110).
Hume explains that we will always have art of passion and significance, and they will succeed each other over time, yet true works of merit will stand the test of time. He states later, that this especially proves to be true when some significant works with both aesthetic appeal and true value are created; one part eventually falls away, yet the other, remains, an aspect of praise. This is a very good example of how Hume would distinguish what is truly good art.
"The abstract philosophy of Cicero has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration" (Hume, 110).
What would Hume say to two “critics,” who blatantly disagreed on a profound piece of art?
This may be the best counter example to Hume's definitions of art and the viewers of art. As we talked about it in class, there seems to be a hint of circular reasoning on his (Hume's) part, which begs the questions; how can one tell a critic is good?... Because he judges classic art favorably... and this classical art was first deemed favorable by a "good" critic in the first place..
"Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and , nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty...Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society, by the soundness of their understanding and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind" (Hume, 109-10).
With that being said, how can society distinguish one person's view of art as superior, when so few are qualified to give judgement in the first place? Hume says that society will eventually dictate the true critics from the false ones, yet also says that these same men approving one man cannot truly judge the art for themselves. And what of the original art? Hume often refers to the works of Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Descartes, as literature that will stand the test of time, as truly good art. Yet who deemed it so in the first place? His explanation somewhat skirts the matter by offering answer A for question B, and then offering that question B (explanation) for the clarification of answer A. While I greatly admired most of Hume's opinions on art, I did find this one instance in particular somewhat questionable.
"Thus, though the principles of taste be universal, and , nearly, if not entirely the same in all men; yet few are qualified to give judgment on any work of art, or establish their own sentiment as the standard of beauty...Though men of delicate taste be rare, they are easily to be distinguished in society, by the soundness of their understanding and the superiority of their faculties above the rest of mankind" (Hume, 109-10).
With that being said, how can society distinguish one person's view of art as superior, when so few are qualified to give judgement in the first place? Hume says that society will eventually dictate the true critics from the false ones, yet also says that these same men approving one man cannot truly judge the art for themselves. And what of the original art? Hume often refers to the works of Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and Descartes, as literature that will stand the test of time, as truly good art. Yet who deemed it so in the first place? His explanation somewhat skirts the matter by offering answer A for question B, and then offering that question B (explanation) for the clarification of answer A. While I greatly admired most of Hume's opinions on art, I did find this one instance in particular somewhat questionable.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Wrapping Up Tolstoy
So far in class this semester, we have analyzed two individuals with two different opinions on art. While they both provide valuable insight as to what art might and could be, I couldn't help but notice that we concluded Plato's assertions to be somewhat shallow, and Tolstoy to be a novelist, merely dabbling in philosophy, however impressive his work was. One thing I think everyone can take from Tolstoy's work, was his opinion that art provides a medium of communication that can succeed in bring people together.
Art, or good art, can bring out a common denominator among groups of people that possibly would have nothing else in common. While Tolstoy never really explains the option of a moving piece of art in which the intention is different from a dramatic reception, his view that art can bring many diverse crowds together is something that I'm sure happens every day.
Art, or good art, can bring out a common denominator among groups of people that possibly would have nothing else in common. While Tolstoy never really explains the option of a moving piece of art in which the intention is different from a dramatic reception, his view that art can bring many diverse crowds together is something that I'm sure happens every day.
Despite the fact that Tolstoy calls for use of specific emotion in art, which is different than Plato’s views, how are they similar in other regards?
"And in order to do that it is primarily necessary to examine that activity in itself, in its dependence on its causes, and in connection with its effects, and not merely in relation to the pleasure we can get from it" (Tolstoy, 234).
While Tolstoy exhibits many differences in his opinions on art than Plato does, I did see a connection, in the fact that both place skeptism on the idea of art for pure aesthetic pleasure. While Plato is much more critical of purely aesthetic art, Tolstoy too sees that there may be a misconception behind the reasons and motives of creating art for the sole purpose of aesthetic beauty.
"Just as people who conceive the aim and purpose of food to be pleasure cannot recognize the real meaning of eating, so people who consider the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize its true meaning and purpose..." (Tolstoy, 235).
Just as many philosophers in the past have stated, that food for the mind is equally as important as food for the body, and that one cannot truly appreciate the pleasure of eating food (literally) before they also realize the value of its nourishment, Tolstoy makes the point that art is like food. One can only appreciate the aesthetic pleasure of art if only at first they realize the art's intellectual or symbolic value.
While Tolstoy exhibits many differences in his opinions on art than Plato does, I did see a connection, in the fact that both place skeptism on the idea of art for pure aesthetic pleasure. While Plato is much more critical of purely aesthetic art, Tolstoy too sees that there may be a misconception behind the reasons and motives of creating art for the sole purpose of aesthetic beauty.
"Just as people who conceive the aim and purpose of food to be pleasure cannot recognize the real meaning of eating, so people who consider the aim of art to be pleasure cannot realize its true meaning and purpose..." (Tolstoy, 235).
Just as many philosophers in the past have stated, that food for the mind is equally as important as food for the body, and that one cannot truly appreciate the pleasure of eating food (literally) before they also realize the value of its nourishment, Tolstoy makes the point that art is like food. One can only appreciate the aesthetic pleasure of art if only at first they realize the art's intellectual or symbolic value.
Tolstoy says that our art should be “appraised on the basis of that religious perception”; why then does he frown upon the “so-called Renaissance”?
"The chief mistake made by people of the upper classes of the time of the so-called Renaissance - a mistake which we still perpetuate- was not that they ceased to value and to attach importance to religious art (people of that period could not attach importance to it, because, like out own upper classes, they could not believe in what the majority considered to be religion)" (Tolstoy, 242).
I think Tolstoy was trying to say that, while he thinks art can only make progress through religious perception, the most powerful people of the Renaissance did not continue that progress. Tolstoy always talks about how art will bring mankind together, to eventually, form a universal brotherhood. While he also states that art can only attain this type of unity and progress through religious perception, he also knows that art in which religion is used as a vehicle to create does not always entail that it coincides with the best perception of the time. Tolstoy used the Renaissance as his example.
He says that while the art had a certain religious aspect, the audience, mostly the upper classes, was quite limited and did not convey religious meaning that the general public shared at the time. Therefore, while the art was very religiously influenced, he deemed it bad art, because it failed to uphold the second part to his condition of progress towards the brotherhood; it failed to unify the people. Tolstoy knew that religious art was only effective if it shared in the religious beliefs of the masses, not the fancies of the upper echelon.
I think Tolstoy was trying to say that, while he thinks art can only make progress through religious perception, the most powerful people of the Renaissance did not continue that progress. Tolstoy always talks about how art will bring mankind together, to eventually, form a universal brotherhood. While he also states that art can only attain this type of unity and progress through religious perception, he also knows that art in which religion is used as a vehicle to create does not always entail that it coincides with the best perception of the time. Tolstoy used the Renaissance as his example.
He says that while the art had a certain religious aspect, the audience, mostly the upper classes, was quite limited and did not convey religious meaning that the general public shared at the time. Therefore, while the art was very religiously influenced, he deemed it bad art, because it failed to uphold the second part to his condition of progress towards the brotherhood; it failed to unify the people. Tolstoy knew that religious art was only effective if it shared in the religious beliefs of the masses, not the fancies of the upper echelon.
TA's Q: How does artistic and creative quality figure in to Tolstoy's definition of art as a means to unite people and their emotions?
I think artistic and creative quality plays a major role in Tolstoy's definition of art, especially when you begin to measure the degrees and ramifications for, "infectiousness." However, I agree with Nicole's earlier comment, that due to human empathy, perhaps even a touching story or tragedy reported in a newspaper could be considered art, providing the reader experiences the appropriate emotion invoked by the piece.
However, I think Tolstoy would say that there remains a difference. In most newspapers, the writing is informative, or critical. I would say that the journalist or reporter does not feel the raw emotion of say, a decorated war hero, that the soldier himself/herself would feel if they related the story directly to the reader. While an empathetic reader may experience the emotions experienced by the source of the story itself, I feel as if the middle man, (the reporter), would break the bond of consciousness that Tolstoy describes as a facet of truly great art. There is no doubt that perhaps the reporter, the source of the story, and the reader all experience similar emotions, however, I would say that by Tolstoy's definition of art at least, it would not be true art.
"So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance" (Tolstoy, 237).
However, I think Tolstoy would say that there remains a difference. In most newspapers, the writing is informative, or critical. I would say that the journalist or reporter does not feel the raw emotion of say, a decorated war hero, that the soldier himself/herself would feel if they related the story directly to the reader. While an empathetic reader may experience the emotions experienced by the source of the story itself, I feel as if the middle man, (the reporter), would break the bond of consciousness that Tolstoy describes as a facet of truly great art. There is no doubt that perhaps the reporter, the source of the story, and the reader all experience similar emotions, however, I would say that by Tolstoy's definition of art at least, it would not be true art.
"So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance" (Tolstoy, 237).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)