ART & ORGANISM
I live by leaps of faith. There is no bridge from an objective reality before me to my beliefs about its past causes and future consequences … every day subsistence and development is by means of these continual leaps of faith, made at every level of organization from perception to evolution. All my experiences are distinctive configurations of recursive functions–building upon and incorporating all those that came before–and are deeply involved with my conscious and non-conscious feelings and knowledge.
In other terms, ART
WHAT CAN ART REPRESENT? To frame a conversation, we can argue that art represents anything/everything that can be perceived–and anything/everything that the artist has every perceived. RECALLING that perception is an interaction between internal and external stimuli: That is: ALL STIMULI ARE PERCEIVED IN LIGHT OF PREVIOUS INTERNALIZED EXPERIENCE. These experiences may be conscious or nonconscious, distant in time or proximate, and represent perceptions co-constituted of specific stimuli that get more-or-less attention.
So, THE WORK OF ART–the ARTIFACT of a creative experience–will represent in varying proportion the mind of the artist and the stimuli perceived. (compare calculated and spontaneous art. cool, ultra-objective art and outsider art or art of the insane)
As the great Romantic Poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge put it, “Now Art, used collectively for painting, sculpture, architecture and music, is the mediatress between, and reconciler of, nature and man. It is, therefore, the power of humanizing nature, of infusing the thoughts and passions of man into everything which is the object of his contemplation” (Coleridge, On Poesy or Art, 1818). [In science we seek to liberate (as much as may be possible) ourselves of the biases and prejudices of our communities and tribes and culture. Is art different? –often art seeks to characterize the culture itself]
- Said clearly by Emile Zola,[i] “Art is a fragment of nature seen through a temperament.” Fifty years later, Joseph Wood Krutch emphasized that art “Even when it is most determinedly realistic, … is conceived in accordance with the laws and limitations of the human mind…..even the most desperately `naturalistic’ art…is, at its most literal, nature passed through a human mind….” (Krutch, 1932) [bold emphasis mine]
SUBJECT MATTER of ART? Everything! But then even that temperament itself! One’s SELF? The nature of the means of creating and how the artist’s state of mind and intentions are manifest–the process and product (artifact) (OK, the transmitter (expressive dimension), the medium, and the receiver (receptive dimension)– but the proportions can vary and often the dimension itself is at the center of the artist’s concern.
- The nature of perception? VISUAL ART that sought to represent more than the sensations and perceptions of the moment emerged about the time of FUTURISM as artists found ways of “fusing of the past and the present, and the representation of different views of the subject pictured at the same time (multiple perspective, or simultaneity –double exposures and cinema –TIME! (see the A&O notes on Time and Space)
- STATE of MIND? if art can represent the artists state of mind, even cognitive competencies, can it be used to diagnose dysfunctions? can paleolithic art inform us of the mind of our distant ancestors, even the evolution of mind?
- REALITY? IDEOLOGY? Do we want to preserve something that affects us in perpetuity–immortalize–turn ephemeral reality into an eternal myth? Do we want to communicate–critically or or promoting–the ideology that informs our perceptions? Propaganda? (e.g., http://www.openbibart.fr/item/display/10068/949180 )(read an excerpt from George Orwell’s (1908) “All Art is Propaganda” (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98010494) and other corroborating commentators
One of the primal functions of what can emerge as “art” may be communications between levels of organization within one’s conconsciousness. Expressions of art are, as the author Ursula Le Guin said of words, “…events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer; they feed energy back and forth and amplify it. They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it.” (Communication? look further )
NATURE? FEELINGS? The state of mind of the artist, either communicating their truth or representing feelings by evoking them from within themselves as a Stanislavskian thespian might. (Stanislavski? Read about “The Method.”)
- Is what actors that utilize “the method” do really different from what any committed artist does? Evoking what is within, even if it involves first internalizing it? Immersing one’s self in the subject, even “becoming one with the subject.”
The emphasis on the feelings of an artist (the “antennae of the race,”Ezra Pound called them) came to be broadly appreciated in the Romantic time– arguably, beginning in 1800 when (for example) Wordsworth, speaking of poets, characterized art as “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.” …. when art is viewed as “the expression or uttering forth of feeling’ “(as John Stuart Mill put it in his essays on poetry of 1833, cited by Abrams 1953:48) … certain questions and notions follow.” We must ask, “how one’s work yields insight into the creator’s psyche … and “Whether it is genuine, spontaneous, sincere .… a projection of artist’s state of mind (TS Eliot’s “objective correlative” (1933) … By characterizing art as the “externalization of a psychic state” … “the “focus of critical attention [has moved] from audience or work of art to the psyche of the artist who created it.” (Federico Fellini said , “all art is autobiographical, the pearl is the oyster’s autobiography.”) “Freud’s approach, pathography*, may be seen as emerging from this larger context rather than as an isolated phenomenon. (Spitz 1985:26).
[i]. From my 1988 paper, “Art, Science, Arete”: Emile Zola (writing of art) termed “fragments of nature seen through a temperament.” (Emile Zola (1886), “Proudhon et Courbet,” In Mes Haines (Paris: Bibliotheque- Charpentier, 1923). Originally published in 1886. “Une oeuvre d’art est un coin de la creation vu a travers un temperament” (p.25). Zola later changed `creation’ to `nature’. Zola quotes Claude Bernard in The Experimental Novel near the end of Part I: “The appearance of the experimental idea,” he says further on, “is entirely spontaneous and its nature absolutely individual, depending upon the mind in which it originates; it is a particular sentiment, a quid proprium, which constitutes the originality, the invention, and the genius of each one.”
This view recalls Longfellow’s “Art is the . . . revelation of nature, speaking through man” (Hyperion, 1839). It was then reinvigorated by Joseph Wood Krutch (Experience and Art, N.Y.: Collier Books, 1962
Questions of INTENTION arise because many aesthetically interesting products are INCIDENTAL to some other action an individual is motivated to express.
We tend to refer to deliberate acts or objects that aim to provide information to another individual as WORKS OF ART, while aesthetically interesting phenomena that or unintended or incidental are ARTIFACTS. Since peoples motives and the usefulness of their actions are not always apparent, even to the person doing it, the lines between ART and ARTIFACT are not easily determined.
Incidental (collateral or “unintended”) consequences are of great interest in EVOLUTIONARY theory because it is often the raw material from which other adaptive functions become significant. (see A&O notes on Ritualization)
- In these notes you will learn that even the most extraordinary outward expressions of one’s inner state may have had their evolutionary origins in very humble reflexes, such as many that are controlled by the autonomic nervous system. For example, an animal’s autonomic nervous system may respond to a stressor by contracting surface muscles that might protect it from trauma (to conserve energy or minimize blood loss in the event of a wound) or the pilomotor muscles at the base of hairs or feathers in warm-blooded animals that help them conserve or dissipate body heat.
- A mild example most of us have experienced is frisson (goose-bumps); or feather-fluffing in birds engaged in courtship: IF the resulting change in appearance provides an advantage (say in chasing off predators or attracting mates) it may become more prominent in subsequent generations. Behold! the peacock’s tail ! (This is an example of the same systems serving multiple functions–that is, pleiotropy, invoked to characterize the multi-tasking of genes).
[i] Lucy Hartley (2015) Review of Feeling Beauty: The Neuroscience of Aesthetic Experience by G. Gabrielle Starr. (Cambridge,MA:MIT Press, 2013. p xv) Modern Philology, Vol. 112, No. 4 (May 2015), pp. E280-E283 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/679474 Accessed: 12-07-2017 14:33 UTC [saved at C:\Users\Greenberg\Dropbox\NEW NOTES\A&O\A&O – review of FEELING BEAUTY .docx ]
Communication–transfer of information–occurs both within and between LEVELS OF ORGANIZATION that can be described both within and between individuals.. That is, from cells to civilizations, there is a constant flow of energy that (arguably) serves to satisfy BIOLOGICAL NEEDS. The level of organization we emphasize is that of the INDIVIDUAL, flanked by ORGANS that enable behavior at a “lower” level and COMMUNITY in which actions are potentially relevant to other individuals as we pursue the interlocked needs to “know and be known.”
With respect to communication within an individual…
With respect to communication between individuals…
And of poetry,
“I believe poetry is also a bridge between solitudes. At its best, it transports us — through the nonlinear and irresistible persuasion of music and metaphor — into a state of receptive empathy, the closest thing we can get to truly understanding what it’s like to see the world as someone else does, to live inside another’s skin.” (excerpted from “How poetry can help us say the unsayable” by Elizabeth Austen in the Seattle Times May 10, 2015)
[Of course there is much more to “saying the unsayable”–pay attention to the play of all your senses when reading or listening: there is no sensory modality that cannot affect the perceived meaning of words. Reading? Pay attention to the typography, phasing and cadence. The intrusion of intervening aspects of verbal sensing and expression. Do you subvocalize? [Diary note: after a few minutes of reading Kazantzakis’ The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel I find myself verbalizing softly. recalled needing to move or pretending I’m the conductor when listening to certain music]
Are you Listening? As with all modes of expression and reception, pay attention to tone of voice, as with music, every nuance of auditory communication. The curious phenomenon of proportions of vowels to consonants… rhyming… listen to masterpieces of rhetoric (e.g. Martin Luther King (1963) Henry V, St Crispin’s Day]
The countertenor Anthony Ross Costanzo said, “the first time I stood on stage and felt an audience completely motionless and silent, I realized that art has the ability to communicate complex emotions and ideas. That deep communication with an audience is what made me want to be an artist.” (allarts.org/everywhere)
(Quoted from Greenberg et al 2017, The Art and Science of Teaching.) A stimulus is special because of the selective attention of the artist and the selective attention of the observer. They necessary collaborate in every work of art” (Adapted from Greenberg et al. 2017)
Can we say that art has meaning?
SPEAKING ABOUT ART:
- AESTHETICS – elements of art A&O gateway site to attributes of art, problems of beauty, and DEEP connections.
TAKING ABOUT ARTISTS:
“pathography is a psychoanalytic approach to the realm of art that depends on detailed knowledge of an artist’s personal life history”