Diego Rivera
Michael Polanyi College
Semester Three Allopoïesis – Art Essay
December 10th, 2013
Michael Polanyi College
Semester Three Allopoïesis – Art Essay
December 10th, 2013
What is Art?
What art really means
I’ve been to a lot of museums and seen the great artists. Some of them have evoked on me feelings I didn’t know I’ve had! In their abstraction or mimesis, they were able to transmit something I was not aware of before. Those are experiences I definitely remember because of that phenomenon that arose when interacting with them. But there are also the bad experiences. Works of art that for some are marvelous and that evoke incredible feelings, and at the same time they evoke nothing on others. They are simple works of art that you feel are not worth spending time with. If we find these huge differences in a work of art, how can we say if it’s good or bad? Or even, if those works are really works of art and what is it that defines this? In order to answer these questions, we must first find out what art is. We must also explore the origins of art and how it has evolved through time. In this exploration, we will find that art is a lot more that the work of art itself, more that what we can perceive with our senses at a given time, and much more than the present moment in which the artist did his work.
Art can be said to have started with the prehistoric and primitive people, mainly in Ancient America. We can see these works of art in the form of painting in the caves. What’s most important is to notice the aim of these artists in trying to portray these figures in the walls. E. H. Gombrich, in his book The Story of Art, says, “Many of the artists’ works are meant to play a part in these strange rituals, and what matters then is not whether the sculpture or painting is beautiful by our standards, but whether it ‘works’, that is to say, whether it can perform the required magic.” What is this magic Gombrich is referring to? For the primitive people, it was a manifestation that gave them powers over their future preys. They didn’t do the paintings for the sake of beauty or delight, but in order to evoke some power that will make them better. They wanted to create something and transmit a message, an idea. The bottom line of the quote above expresses exactly this. It means that in order for us to understand art, we must know the ideas behind that work of art and what the artist was trying to transmit with it. It would only be an illusion to adequately judge a work of art by our standards of beauty instead of judging it in relation to what someone was thinking at the time he or she did it.
Art is not static. It’s quite the opposite. It’s a constant movement of ideas and innovations in all the areas of our life. Again, E. H. Gombrich says, “…the whole story of art is not a story of progress in technical proficiency, but a story of changing ideas and requirements.” Here, we can see the importance of focusing on what’s behind art rather than the work of art itself. The technical proficiency is also a factor in this story, but it’s not what’s going to determine art. If we want to understand this story, we must be able to tell it according to the movement of ideas and requirements, of the things behind art, and the motivations that the artists had at the moment of their creations. This is why art is dynamic and why it would be a wasteful exercise to try to judge something from one period with standards from other period.
In trying to define what art is, Josep Maria Montaner is of great help. In his book, Las Formas del Siglo XX, he says that what he calls form is meant to be understood as the essential and internal structure. Form is the central motive, the key concept, of art. In this sense, art is not a style but all of what’s behind a work of art. This allows us to relate and interpret art with science, philosophy, and society. Art, then, stops being only something represented by a work of art in a specific moment, and starts being the totality that led the artist to create that specific work of art along with its implications in other areas of life.
In any work of art, we find two factors that compose that work. Montaner says that these two factors are the creative procedures used by the authors and the internal structure of the resulting work. The first one corresponds to the mental usage, psychological attitude, and the creative capacity of the artists. The second is about the work of art itself. In other worlds, the first one is the creative process of the artist and the other is the process and technique of the work of art. The latter must not be confused with the internal structure of the art mentioned above, since this one refers only to the work of art and the other to the whole structure of art and the ideas behind it.
When looking at art, our aim should be to understand both processes. First, the ideas and context that the artist had when doing that work of art, and second, the process of doing the work of art and the mechanism the artist used to perform such result. Only by doing this, we would be able to judge with the respective standards a specific work of art. This leads us to an answer for the questions at the beginning of this essay. We can determine the validity or goodness of a work of art if it ‘works’, in the words of Gombrich. It would work if what the artist was trying to transmit and evoke is accomplished. Moreover, it can be said to be good in the extent that this is achieved and understood. So, whenever you are in a museum watching a great artist’s paintings or sculptures, don’t only think about how beautiful or ugly you perceive it, but try to understand what made the artist do that work in that specific way, and find the connections it has with the science, philosophy, and cultural context that were latent at that time. That’s the only true way of understanding what art really is.
Art can be said to have started with the prehistoric and primitive people, mainly in Ancient America. We can see these works of art in the form of painting in the caves. What’s most important is to notice the aim of these artists in trying to portray these figures in the walls. E. H. Gombrich, in his book The Story of Art, says, “Many of the artists’ works are meant to play a part in these strange rituals, and what matters then is not whether the sculpture or painting is beautiful by our standards, but whether it ‘works’, that is to say, whether it can perform the required magic.” What is this magic Gombrich is referring to? For the primitive people, it was a manifestation that gave them powers over their future preys. They didn’t do the paintings for the sake of beauty or delight, but in order to evoke some power that will make them better. They wanted to create something and transmit a message, an idea. The bottom line of the quote above expresses exactly this. It means that in order for us to understand art, we must know the ideas behind that work of art and what the artist was trying to transmit with it. It would only be an illusion to adequately judge a work of art by our standards of beauty instead of judging it in relation to what someone was thinking at the time he or she did it.
Art is not static. It’s quite the opposite. It’s a constant movement of ideas and innovations in all the areas of our life. Again, E. H. Gombrich says, “…the whole story of art is not a story of progress in technical proficiency, but a story of changing ideas and requirements.” Here, we can see the importance of focusing on what’s behind art rather than the work of art itself. The technical proficiency is also a factor in this story, but it’s not what’s going to determine art. If we want to understand this story, we must be able to tell it according to the movement of ideas and requirements, of the things behind art, and the motivations that the artists had at the moment of their creations. This is why art is dynamic and why it would be a wasteful exercise to try to judge something from one period with standards from other period.
In trying to define what art is, Josep Maria Montaner is of great help. In his book, Las Formas del Siglo XX, he says that what he calls form is meant to be understood as the essential and internal structure. Form is the central motive, the key concept, of art. In this sense, art is not a style but all of what’s behind a work of art. This allows us to relate and interpret art with science, philosophy, and society. Art, then, stops being only something represented by a work of art in a specific moment, and starts being the totality that led the artist to create that specific work of art along with its implications in other areas of life.
In any work of art, we find two factors that compose that work. Montaner says that these two factors are the creative procedures used by the authors and the internal structure of the resulting work. The first one corresponds to the mental usage, psychological attitude, and the creative capacity of the artists. The second is about the work of art itself. In other worlds, the first one is the creative process of the artist and the other is the process and technique of the work of art. The latter must not be confused with the internal structure of the art mentioned above, since this one refers only to the work of art and the other to the whole structure of art and the ideas behind it.
When looking at art, our aim should be to understand both processes. First, the ideas and context that the artist had when doing that work of art, and second, the process of doing the work of art and the mechanism the artist used to perform such result. Only by doing this, we would be able to judge with the respective standards a specific work of art. This leads us to an answer for the questions at the beginning of this essay. We can determine the validity or goodness of a work of art if it ‘works’, in the words of Gombrich. It would work if what the artist was trying to transmit and evoke is accomplished. Moreover, it can be said to be good in the extent that this is achieved and understood. So, whenever you are in a museum watching a great artist’s paintings or sculptures, don’t only think about how beautiful or ugly you perceive it, but try to understand what made the artist do that work in that specific way, and find the connections it has with the science, philosophy, and cultural context that were latent at that time. That’s the only true way of understanding what art really is.
El Individuo y la Libertad
Él se levantó, miró hacia su alrededor y no vio nada. Estaba solo y todo dependía de él. Su visión era como un foco de luz que le daba significado a cada cosa que veía. Era como si estuviese en una carretera en donde todo estaba oscuro, excepto la parte a donde él veía.
Poco a poco se dio cuenta que él era el agente que le daba significado a las cosas. Después de todo, las cosas estaban allí y podrían haber otros que las entendieran de otra manera. Pero él lo sabía. Sabía que estaba en su poder el elegir qué es lo que veía y qué significado esa cosa tendría. Él entendió que no solo tenía el poder de elegir sino también la responsabilidad de todo lo que él se convertiría. Él era el hombre creado por sus actos. No había nada dado ni algo que tuviera antes de existir. Él era la totalidad de sus actos; suyos y de nadie más.
Estaba solo y sin nadie que le dijera que era lo bueno o lo malo o lo que tuviera que hacer. Y así seguiría en el futuro. Él lo sabía. Sabía que el precio de la libertad de elegir y convertirse en la persona que él quisiera era el de estar solo, como abandonado. La angustia era casi insoportable y era más fácil creer que alguien más estaba allí para él y que lo ayudaría a reducir la soledad a cambio de un poco de responsabilidad. Pero eso era una ilusión nada más. Y de esa angustia, él sabía que era un precio bajo por el valor de ser libre y poder elegir quién iba a ser. Solo, en ese camino oscuro y sin nada a priori, él debía emprender su viaje hacia la creación del significado de su vida.
Realismo humanista y existencial. Inspirado en la filosofía de Jean-Paul Sartre y Viktor Frankl.
Poco a poco se dio cuenta que él era el agente que le daba significado a las cosas. Después de todo, las cosas estaban allí y podrían haber otros que las entendieran de otra manera. Pero él lo sabía. Sabía que estaba en su poder el elegir qué es lo que veía y qué significado esa cosa tendría. Él entendió que no solo tenía el poder de elegir sino también la responsabilidad de todo lo que él se convertiría. Él era el hombre creado por sus actos. No había nada dado ni algo que tuviera antes de existir. Él era la totalidad de sus actos; suyos y de nadie más.
Estaba solo y sin nadie que le dijera que era lo bueno o lo malo o lo que tuviera que hacer. Y así seguiría en el futuro. Él lo sabía. Sabía que el precio de la libertad de elegir y convertirse en la persona que él quisiera era el de estar solo, como abandonado. La angustia era casi insoportable y era más fácil creer que alguien más estaba allí para él y que lo ayudaría a reducir la soledad a cambio de un poco de responsabilidad. Pero eso era una ilusión nada más. Y de esa angustia, él sabía que era un precio bajo por el valor de ser libre y poder elegir quién iba a ser. Solo, en ese camino oscuro y sin nada a priori, él debía emprender su viaje hacia la creación del significado de su vida.
Realismo humanista y existencial. Inspirado en la filosofía de Jean-Paul Sartre y Viktor Frankl.