some questions about art

[Cythraul]

So here are some questions I have concerning art which I've been wondering about for awhile. Hopefully these can spark some thoughtful discussion.

I often find myself trying to explain to other people why I think certain works of art are good and why I think they should be valued. In attempting to do so I'll usually describe the aesthetic features of said works, and then I'll try to describe what sort of "meanings" the works convey. But I always feel as though my descriptions fall short of being satisfactory. I always feel as though there's some value-relevant aspects of the work I really can't put into words. I usually just end up saying something like "Well, you should just experience the work for yourself and then maybe you'll understand what's so good about it." I feel as though part of coming to understand why a work of art is good consists in actually experiencing it. That seems weird to me though. I mean, there are other things which I can explain perfectly well and to my and other peoples' satisfaction, such as why the sun seems to rise and then dip below the horizon at regular intervals. Does anybody else have this sort of experience? Am I just bad at talking about art or is art ineffable to some extent?

Another question: What does taking pleasure in art consist in? I've never really taken the time to try and analyze the experience I'm having when I take pleasure in a work of art. I usually like to make a distinction between different ways of taking pleasure in something. One way is taking pleasure in the agreeable (which is a Kantian distinction if I'm not mistaken). This is the sort of pleasure one gets when one eats some tasty ice cream or listens to a catchy song. It's a visceral sort of pleasure. And then there is another sort of pleasure which I'm inclined to think is more cognitive in nature. This is the sort of pleasure I have when I experience a work of art which I value highly. For instance, I take pleasure in the agreeable when I hear certain death metal songs which have really gnarly riffs, but most of the time my pleasure remains at this sort of visceral level. And then I have a different kind of pleasure, like when I listen to Hvis Lyset Tar Oss by Burzum, and it's this kind of pleasure which causes me to place more value on the Burzum album than some dm song with a bunch of gnarly riffs. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Hvis Lyset Tar Oss is not even a pleasurable listening experience at all, in the visceral sense. So what is it to take pleasure in a work of art, and do really great works of art produce an entirely different sort of pleasure than merely "enjoyable" works? If so, what does this pleasure consist in?

I hope all of this isn't too random.

 

[JColtrane]

In response to the first, I definitely have felt the same sort of limitation. Trying to explain art is to me like trying to explain love: you always lose something in the explanation of it.

 

[speed]

So here are some questions I have concerning art which I've been wondering about for awhile. Hopefully these can spark some thoughtful discussion.

I often find myself trying to explain to other people why I think certain works of art are good and why I think they should be valued. In attempting to do so I'll usually describe the aesthetic features of said works, and then I'll try to describe what sort of "meanings" the works convey. But I always feel as though my descriptions fall short of being satisfactory. I always feel as though there's some value-relevant aspects of the work I really can't put into words. I usually just end up saying something like "Well, you should just experience the work for yourself and then maybe you'll understand what's so good about it." I feel as though part of coming to understand why a work of art is good consists in actually experiencing it. That seems weird to me though. I mean, there are other things which I can explain perfectly well and to my and other peoples' satisfaction, such as why the sun seems to rise and then dip below the horizon at regular intervals. Does anybody else have this sort of experience? Am I just bad at talking about art or is art ineffable to some extent?

Another question: What does taking pleasure in art consist in? I've never really taken the time to try and analyze the experience I'm having when I take pleasure in a work of art. I usually like to make a distinction between different ways of taking pleasure in something. One way is taking pleasure in the agreeable (which is a Kantian distinction if I'm not mistaken). This is the sort of pleasure one gets when one eats some tasty ice cream or listens to a catchy song. It's a visceral sort of pleasure. And then there is another sort of pleasure which I'm inclined to think is more cognitive in nature. This is the sort of pleasure I have when I experience a work of art which I value highly. For instance, I take pleasure in the agreeable when I hear certain death metal songs which have really gnarly riffs, but most of the time my pleasure remains at this sort of visceral level. And then I have a different kind of pleasure, like when I listen to Hvis Lyset Tar Oss by Burzum, and it's this kind of pleasure which causes me to place more value on the Burzum album than some dm song with a bunch of gnarly riffs. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Hvis Lyset Tar Oss is not even a pleasurable listening experience at all, in the visceral sense. So what is it to take pleasure in a work of art, and do really great works of art produce an entirely different sort of pleasure than merely "enjoyable" works? If so, what does this pleasure consist in?

I hope all of this isn't too random.

It isnt too random, because there is no definable or objective answer. This is what makes art great: the unexplainable feeling art creates, as well as ones appreciation and valuation of a great--even just in one's opinion--work of art. I think most of the continental philosophers I've read understood this power of art. Its yet another example of the limits if you will, of philosophy and logic. Art transcends logic, it transcends interpretation for all but its receiver and creator, it transcends aesthetics, ideology and politics, even religion.

This might seem a romantic notion--especially now that I read it--but I think all of us have experienced it with art. I am concerned however, with the extreme commercialization of art. However, it still goes on.

 

[Tbass17]

With regard to understanding and appreciating art, I can sympathise entirely with what you are saying. Art is not something that should be explained and analysed in detail as doing so will turn a thought provoking image into a series of brush strokes and pencil lines.On a recent visit to an exhibition with an art student friend I found it very frustrating when all she could talk about was the type of paints used and not what the image conveyed. This can also be applyed to litrature. As an A-level litrature student I often become frustrated with the level of detail with which I must analyse texts that I have much enjoyed reading and in which I have found my own personal meanings and interpretations.

Again with the second question I can relate entirely. I often find at gigs when a certain riff or song is played or when the entire crowd sings a line that I feel almost spiritually lifted. This is not an asthetic pleasure but a sub-concious one and something that for whatever reason we find pleasureable and even sometimes comforting.