Art and Analysis: An Essay toward a Theory in Aesthetics

230 Pages·1957·6.55 MB·English

by  Edward G. Ballard (auth.)

ART AND ANALYSIS
AR T AND ANAL YSIS
An Essay toward a Theory
in Aesthetics
by
EDWARD G. BALLARD
Tulane University 01 Louisiana
I I
1957
MARTIN US NljHOFF - THE HAGUE
ISBN 978-94-011-8193-8 ISBN 978-94-011-8843-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-8843-2
Geniessen ist nachschaften
GOETHE
PREFACE
Aesthetics, fledgling of the philosophic brood, is the most suspect
of that family. It is suspected of all the philosophical sins:
vagueness, disorder, dogmatism, emotionalism, reductionism,
compartmentalization. Sometimes its youth is thought to be a
sufficient excuse for these divagations. Sometimes the very
nature of its content, involving the waywardness of genius, the
remoteness of feeling from intellect, the surd of inspiration in
even the mildest appreciation, are believed to condemn aes
thetics irrevocably to the underside of the civilized man's domain.
Some philosophers have gloried in this apparently mystical and
a-rational quality and have seen in it the very nature of the
beautiful; others have come to regard it, rather, as evidence of
the unskillfulness of our minds and have turned away from
aesthetic problems to the task of sharpening the aesthetician's
language and logic. The laughter of the gods is not difficult to
discern through the poetry of the more mystical aesthetician or
through the prose of the analysts. Meanwhile the manifold
complexities and problems of aesthetic experience invite our
understanding. For aesthetic experience is a present fact of
human life and may, perhaps, be understood by men. Such, at
least, will be the present assumption. This is the reason why the
title of this book mentions art together with analysis; for if art
is intelligible, the work of art and the experience of it may be
analyzed into its functional parts. And that is also why art is
mentioned together with theory; for if art is intelligible, its
analytically separated parts can be reunited in a theoretical
transform through which the art object and our response to it
can be made rationally respectible and communicable.
The growth of good theories, however, is measured in cen
turies rather than in years. In order that we should the more
certainly be on a profitable path, we may safely take the time
to work as many variations upon aesthetic theory as possible.
x PREFACE
An embarras de choix is not always an unpleasing or a wasteful.
predicament. The present writing will propose certain ideas and
initial definitions organized into one of the possible aesthetic
theories with the intent of throwing light from its own point of
perspective upon experience of the aesthetic.
Of the making of mere theories in aesthetics, some are heard
to lament, there is no end. These philosophical protestants
sometimes argue that time were better spent if aestheticians
would elaborate tests which at least might possess the practical
value of informing the uncertain art lover concerning the weak
ness and strength of his aesthetic sensibilities. A cursory ex
amination of such tests will reveal that their makers usually
accept as the standard of good and bad in matters of apprecia
tion the decisions of a small group of so-called experts. These
experts are recognized, apparently, by convention, or perhaps
by the author of the test. Convention or the conventionally
recognized expert is, thus, doing the work of a reasoned theory.
At the very least, we might observe, these conventions or these
experts ought to be critically examined before the right to issue
our aesthetic standards is accorded them. But this critical
explanation can be conducted only in the light of a set of
sound principles, a theory in which we have some reason to
believe.
There are still others who wish to advance the cause of art
by ridding it of theory. (Even the belief, though, that aesthetics
is irrelevant to art is an item within an aesthetic theory.) Those
who hold to this negative theory are often the data collectors,
the mere statisticians. Their belief is that inductive methods
are sufficient; if one, unblinded by the prejudice of theory,
resolves but to question Nature, by using the most scientific and
approved methods, then he will do more than all the sages can
to add to our understanding of aesthetic phenomena. Pointing
out the one-sidedness of this naive view would hardly be worth
while except that the view does exist and is even, in certain
quarters, rather powerful. One may ask of the data-collector how
he will recognize the data which he is to collect. Will he search
for aesthetic data among natural objects or only among human
artifacts? Is this data to be sought among values or among
facts? Does it belong to the objective or to the subjective side of
PREFACE XI
experience? If the latter, is introspection an adequate source of
data? Are all the senses equally responsive to or productive of
the aesthetic? Are concepts ever aesthetic? If such questions
as these are not settled, the data-gatherer cannot even commence
his task. He will not know where to search. Of course the data
gatherer does settle these questions - - especially when he does
not recognize them - and does collect and collate data and
publish articles. He usually settles these questions unconsciously
by accepting uncriticized dictates of the customs belonging to
the culture within which he happens to be reared. In other words,
he permits uncriticized custom to play for him the part proper to
theory. The sophisticated investigator, on the other hand, is
guided to his search for relevant data by a well grounded and
criticized theory.
The making of theories in aesthetics, then, as elsewhere, is
justified not only by the fact that they clarify and organize
experience but also because they are indispensable instruments
for guiding research. Likewise, from their standpoint the customs
of the day can often be profitably criticized. Perhaps they
would even help meet the fear which is evident in the attitude
so often exhibited toward both artist and his work. Frequently
the artist is regarded as a strange and rather dangerous creature
who dwells beyond the mores and standards of modem life and
is tolerable only so long as he keeps to the Bohemian quarters set
apart for him and his ilk. Perhaps after he is dead, his work is
said or sung or set aside in museums, often under circumstances
which make it impossible for a large public ever to come into
contact with the work. Our ugly cities feel more secure when the
artist and his work are made inaccessible to all except an initiated
and decorous few. This security is infantile, but society will not
outgrow it without understanding itself and the whole of its
needs with more clarity. A theory about the experience of works
of art which relate this experience to other aspects of human life
might contribute to this understanding.
Obviously, to meet all of our needs, a theory must be well
grounded. It is not easy to define the exact marks by which a
well grounded aesthetic theory is recognized. At least this mark
is centrally important: the well grounded aesthetic theory should
include as special cases of its general principles all experiences
XII PREFACE
which are customarily recognized as aesthetic or else provide
some reason for explaining why custom should be in error. In
this essay a considerable levy will have to be made upon other
fields of inquiry as part of the endeavor to satisfy this and other
requirements.
Aesthetics should be sharply distinguished from several <>ther
kinds of investigations which, nevertheless, are closely akin to it.
The philosophy of art is an evaluative enterprise; it attempts
to achieve an evaluation of the whole field of art in its relation
to the rest of human culture. Prior to this undertaking aesthetics
must already have determined what aesthetic experience is and
what kind of value is to be expected from it; otherwise the
philosophy of art will have to proceed in the dark. On the other
hand general value theory is prior to aesthetics, for it is granted
that any aesthetic experience is an experience of some kind of
value. The function of aesthetics is to determine what kind of
value this is, what objects are so valued, and what the conditions
are for valuing them in this fashion. It is quite possible to hold,
as will be done in this essay, that a work of art is a certain kind
of symbol. Semantics studies the signification of signs and symbols.
Nevertheless, aesthetics is not semantics. Aesthetics uses the
general principles of semantics, as these are applied by the
artist, to achieve the symbolic embodiment of his particular
kind of meaning and value; it seeks to determine just how the
work of art is related to the principles of semantics. Technical
treatises which show how to achieve aesthetic effects can likewise
be utilized by the aesthetician in order to determine the objective
character of the aesthetic effect, i.e. aesthetic form. The psy
chologist of art makes a study of the aesthetic experience and
seeks to show how this exemplifies general psychological princi
ples. His results, too, may be profitably examined by the aes
thetician who must understand the subjective conditions of the
process of enjoying aesthetic value. Finally there is a philosophy
in art. This is the philosophy or faith employed spontaneously
by the artist, especially by the literary artist, as part of the
means by which he produces the aesthetic effect and as the
medium through which he communicates aesthetic value. This
philosophy may be discussed in isolation from the works of art
in which it so subtly appears. This philosophy is not aesthetic
PREFACE XIII
value either, but it is a necessary condition for there being
anything for the aesthetician to talk about.
Aesthetics thus appears as a kind of center from which radiate
the several ways of studying works of art. It lends a unity to the
multitudinous and otherwise disparate approaches to the universe
of art.
The primary purpose of the work, then, will be to define this
unity. It will be to determine the nature of aesthetic value and of
the response to this kind of value and to show that the insight
achieved into this nature and this experience, as formulated in
definitions, is actually exemplified in the aesthetic experience
which people ordinarily have. The first three chapters discuss
historical, factual, and theoretical preliminaries. Chapters IV, V,
VI, and VII develop the theory proper. Then chapters VIII, IX,
and X carry the investigation in two directions; they consider
the atmosphere in which aesthetic activity has gone on and can
probably continue, also they narrow the general definition of
aesthetic value down to applying to particular arts. Finally
chapters XI and XII determine the relation of aesthetics on one
hand to metaphysics and on the other to criticism, suggesting
what is in fact the case that aesthetics occupies a mean position
between these two.
I wish to express gratitude to my colleagues of Tulane Uni
versity and to other friends for their conversation and inspiration,
and especially to Professor Richard Fogle who read the whole
essay, and to Professor H. N. Lee and Professor C. H. Hamburg,
who read over parts of it. All of these and others have made
valuable suggestions. Likewise I want to thank the editors of
several publications for permission to make use of my articles
which have appeared in their pages; these articles are: "Truth
and Insight into Value" and "An Estimate of Dewey'S Art as
Experience", published in Tulane Studies in Philosophy; "In
Defense of Symbolic Aesthetics" in Journal 0/ Aesthetics and
Art Criticism; "A Pattern in Poetry" in Journal 0/ Education;
"The Subject of Aristotle's Poetics" in The Personalist; "Toward a
Philosophy for Literature" in The Hibbert Journal; "The Un
binding of Prometheus" in The Classical Journal; "Literary
Truth and Positivistic Criticism" in The Southern Philosopher.
I am also very grateful to the Tulane University Council of
XIV PREFACE
Research for the award of several grants which provided the
financial support for this writing.
Tulane University of Louisiana
New Orleans, Louisiana