Teaching-Learning-Sharing of Zena/Xena Crystal LC Huang (黃昶): September 2012

A Discussion on Beauty versus Artistic Beauty

Li-chin (Crystal) Huang

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities

A Discussion on Beauty versus Artistic Beauty

Table of Contents

Introduction

Research purposes and methods- sencondary data analysis

Literature Reviews

Results

Conclusions

References

Abstract

The enterprise of aesthetic judgment is highly complicated. The writer differentiates the major differences between the concept of “beauty” and “artistic beauty” as part of our team debate for a course work. In this paper, the former refers to a general pleasure response of aesthetic experience. The latter points to particular artistic endeavors, progressing from retinal toward cerebral aesthetic experience and judgments, and is highly contextualized.

What is beauty vs. artistic beauty?

Seeking, presenting, and interpreting what beauty is, permeates most human societies. For example, there is a saying in Japan that if the length of Cleopatra ’s beautiful nose changed a tiny bit, maybe the human history would be written quite differently. So as in several sagas in Chinese history depicting the most desirable and unfathomable beautiful women (of whom, later some became expresses, royal concubines, or women in power) contributed to the changes of the Chinese history either in better or worse directions. This is said to be true of the Balinese, who say, “we have no art, but do everything the best way we can,” may be another example that expands the concept of beauty to perceiving and appreciating in all spheres of their activities those aesthetic values we find in artworks alone (Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1989).

So, how do Japanese and Chinese define female beauty? Can human appearances or physicality be works of art? Are there different aesthetic criteria in judging female beauty between Chinese and Japanese, and between Westerners and Easterners? What are the differences between the judgments of female or body beauty versus that of judging calligraphy- valued as high art in most Far Eastern cultures? Why do Balinese regard that nothing is art but do the best they can for what? In short, what is “beauty” versus “artistic beauty” in human endeavors and all sphere of daily activities as mentioned above?

In searching for the possible answers, information pertinent to the topic

was collected from books, journals, and the Internet to form as a secondary data analysis.

Literature Reviews

Generally speaking, concerning what is beautiful is part of philosophical inquiry located in the aesthetic domain. Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, which has occupied thinker from Plato to the present day. To define perfection and to set standards of beauty termed aesthetics or, “the science of the beautiful,” was initiated by German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten in 1753. Baumgarten was considered the first modern philosopher to approach the question of beauty systematically, introducing the term aesthetics and defining the experience of beauty as the “sensory recognition of perfection” (Danto, 1997). His contemporary, Immanuel Kant, expressed a universal, disinterested notion of aesthetics, which is without a specific purpose and judgments or mere personal preference toward a beautiful object (Bernard, 1951).

Among these two quite opposite points of views, I investigate another eclectic definition of aesthetics from Encarta. It defines aesthetics as: “A branch of philosophy concerned with the essence and perception of beauty and ugliness, dealing with the question of whether such qualities are objectively present in the things they appear to qualify, or whether they exist only in the mind of the individual; hence, whether objects are perceived by a particular mode, the aesthetic mode, or whether instead the objects have, in themselves, special aesthetic qualities.”

Similar to many philosophical issues, the concept of aesthetics is inherently

debatable. The above definition is no exception. For example, what and how to “qualify

such qualities”, and what how the “special aesthetic qualities” are in the definition is still

ambiguous and debatable. However, it points out two domains worth of attention: one is

“the qualities are objectively present in the things they appear to qualify”; the other one is

“whether such qualities exist only in the mind of the individual.” Understanding these

two questions might shed some light on the comprehension of “beauty” versus “artistic

beauty.”

In order to understand the concept of aesthetics, the following section reviews several perspectives from various rationales of philosophers, aestheticians, and social thinkers dichotomized mainly, into two categories: objective and subjective accounts of beauty. The former can be seen that the beautiful qualities are objectively presented in the things they appear to the qualifications; and the latter is perceived whether the beautiful qualities exist in the mind of the individual.

The objective account of beauty

In this tradition, I started with Platonic point of view that a relation of resemblance

between the art work and the object it imitates as the key to the mimetic theory. The

formalism can be traced back to Aristotle’s aesthetically good- or, actually beautiful- if it

is ordered, symmetrical, and define, and if it demonstrates each of these virtues to a high

degree. This analysis we call “formal,” because it focuses on the presence in the object

of certain aesthetic properties, ones that have to do with the form (as distinguished from

the content) of the object. St. Augustine is another formalist. His account of beauty was

an object to be beautiful is for it to exhibit unity, number, equality, proportion and

order, with unity as the most basic notion. St. Thomas Aquinas was also found a formal account of beauty that rests on three conditions: integrity or perfection, due proportion or harmony, and brightness or clarity (as light is a symbol of divine beauty and truth). Shaftesbury believed that so long as one was disinterested in attitude, one’s judgment that an object was beautiful was correct as long as the object exhibits “uniformity” (Battin et al. 1989). Francis Hutcheson believed that if an object exhibits “uniformity amongst variety,” that object is beautiful. Joseph Addison believed that an object was worthy of positive aesthetic judgment if it exhibited greatness and uncommonness. Up to the 20th century, Moore recognizes the aesthetics exists in organic unity. Clive Bell refers it as significant form. Beardsley felt that for an object to be aesthetically good is must be unified and/or intense, and /or complex, and be such that it prompts in attentive perceivers a pleasurable experience characterized by unity, and /or intensity, and /or complexity (Fenner, 2005).

The Subjective account of beauty

David Hume and Immanuel Kant shed new light on the concept of aesthetics.

Instead of focusing on the aesthetic object, they assumed that the qualities of attender

made him or her a good judge (2005). Within the Kantian framework, if a flower is

aesthetically pleasing, but is ecologically destructive--it could never be ideally beautiful

because ideal beauty for Kant is uniquely a product of moral values. The objective beauty

of flower is never the same as the ideally/subjectively beautiful.

In reality, After World War I and World War II, the impact and the magnitude of

human disasters provocatively challenged artists to rethink and re-formulate the

conventional ways of perceiving, understanding, and reflecting on the concepts and

principles of morality, justice, and the meaning of beauty. Following the same vein,

American painter Philip Guston, who, in the Vietnam War period, could find no

justification or moral consistency in painting beautiful.

So as in 1967, in conversation with critic Roger Fry, Marcel Duchamp pointed out that art should do was call up, not a sensual response, but an intellectual one, which can be interpreted as art should not stay retinal, but cerebral. His fountain (urinal piece) challenged our cognition regarding what it means to make art beautiful while the world was undergoing destruction.

As to the Emotionalism, argues that art is the embodiment in a public, sensuous medium of an emotion or a collection to them. The “aesthetic attitude” theorists point to a certain disinterested quality of mind the artwork invites; and hedonists to objectify pleasure as principles to judge beauty. Finally, Pragmaticism or Functionalism points out that art is to promote the common good and empower the common people as the criteria to judge the beauty of objects (DiBlasio, excerpted from Weitz, Summer 2005).

Art historian Janson points out that art has both ideas and facts. Aesthetics concerns the beautiful. But, not all art is beautiful to our eyes, but may be to the minds. My question is whether the beautiful is imbedded specifically in the ideas or facts, or both? For Hegel, there are three hierarchically ordered categories of beauty. These include: natural beauty, artistic beauty (behind which lies intentions), and the beauty one finds in decoration and adornment (which is meant to enhance the pleasure). Among the general population when asked what do you like about a picture, the most used term is "pretty" or some variation related to pretty which I refer to Hegel’s first layer of beauty, or Parsons’ non-reflective point of views as well as likening the beauty, realism, and skills. Why do majority of population (as we refer to “untrained’ eyes and minds) prefer beauty defined as realism with intense skills? A discussion from various perspectives will be continued into the following section.

A Discussion on Beauty versus Artistic Beauty

Santayana in defiance of Kant, says that pleasure is the essence of the perception of beauty, and aesthetic pleasure cannot be divorced from interests. He pointed out that aesthetics, the theory of beauty, in particular for the individual, is concerned with the perception of values that are dependent upon emotional consciousness: appreciations, appetites, and preferences (Fenner, 2003). So, what are the essences of appreciations, appetites, and preferences?

During the last hundred years, aesthetics had been relating to psychology, a field which has come to equally debatable for its own multiple expansion of perspectives. In the following sections, I tried to borrow some understanding from psychology to examine the sensory beauty and artistic beauty. From the bio-genetic perspective, all human beings, in general, are born with similar genetic makeup, such as brains and nervous systems to perceive the imageries and events. That could explain why some sensory beauty or pleasurable beauty has commonality. Looking in to the details, we can detect the differences between sensation versus perception. In psychology, sensation is the process by which our sensory receptors and nervous system receive and represent stimulus energies from our environment. Perception is the process of organizing and

interpreting sensory information, enabling us to recognize meaningful object and events. The terminology refers to information processing: the “bottom-up processing” means that analysis that begins with the sense receptors and works up to the brain’s integration of sensory information. This stage of processing is similar to Parsons’ first and second steps of art understanding. According to Parsons people using ideas associated with an intuitive delight in most painting, as strong attraction to color, and a freewheeling associative response to subject matter (parson, 1987, p.22) Parsons’ (1987) second stage “it is true that some paintings are representational, but they are not really meaningful.” The “top-down processing” means information processing guided by higher-level mental process, as when we construct perceptions drawing on our experience and expectations. This processing corresponds to Parsons’ third stage value “ creativity, originality, and depth of feeling (1987, p.23); stage fourth of judgments of people using culturally leaned ideals ( p.143), and the fifth stage of art specialist’s understanding or plural art world viewpoint (Clover and Erickson, 1997, and 1998).

There is an important concept related to perception that might aid our understanding the experience or judgment of beauty. Myers (2004) remarks, “ As everyone knows, to see is to believe. As many people also know, but do not fully appreciate, to believe is to see.” Our experience, assumptions, and expectations may give us a “perceptual set,” or mental predisposition; that greatly influences what we perceive. Parsons (1987), Davis, Gander (2000), and Housen (2000) all point out similar viewpoints that as progressively exposing to various experiences, people develop awareness of the characteristic of their own experience and the others’, a questioning of the influences upon it, and a wondering whether one really sees what one thins one sees.

Specifically speaking, it is gene that controls the action of the chemical messengers in the brain that represents the world we involve with. Some genes, in particular, related to dopamine, the key neurotransimitter in the brains’ “pleasure center” or reward system. As dopamine passes from one cell to another, it signals a pleasurable sensation. It is normally triggered by action that supports human beings’ survival, either of the individual or the species in enhancing the physical or mental state. For example, general public perceive Elvis Presley as one of the most attractive/handsome and talented male entertainers. For his physical appearance and music trigger the pleasant sensation through the sight and acoustic senses that make an individual feel good. The golden rule in a rectangle is perceived as the most aesthetically beautiful ratio is another example for a universal beauty account. There can be a “general” experience or judgment on beauty based on bio-genetic and evolutionary similarities among human beings. Thus, if beauty taken to such a broader concept by recognizing any trace of positive aesthetic value as beautiful which is biologically connected, then pleasure can be the key to aesthetic value, in terms of abovementioned “general or universal.” As John Ruskin put it, “Any material object which can give us pleasure in the contemplation of its outward qualities without any direct and definite exertion of the intellectual, is in some way or in some degree beautiful” (Ruskin, 1906).

Aesthetics related to psychology can also be traced back to the concept of

“Associations” proclaimed by Archibald Alison (Fenner, 2003). He began to focus on the psychology of aesthetic experience instead of the conditions of aesthetic judgment. Alison emphasized the importance of imagination in the construction of aesthetic experience. For Alison, imagination was largely a matter of actively drawing out associations in the viewer, through what he called “attentive contemplation” of the object/event at hand. Imaginative associations are not matters of intellect; they are matters of psychology. He said: The mere presentation of beauty was not enough to stimulate the sensory receptors into feeling pleasure over the beauty; the spectator becomes a more active participant. He exercises his mind, his imagination, and his attentive contemplation, in order to experience more fully the nature of the object, and in so doing experience the object as fully aesthetically as he can. Without this mindful/imaginative activity, the experience is not aesthetic, but one of mere pleasure (Fenner, 2003).

He argued that aesthetic beauty takes mindful and imaginative mental activities. He distinguished the sensory pleasure (general) from the aesthetic engagement (particular). The similar emphasis on psychological state can be found in Dewey’s concept of aesthetics. He also focused not on conditions of judgment but on exploration of the psychological nature of experiences. Dewey’s (1934) account centers on what he calls “an experience:” ” An experience is any garden-variety experience that one might have which has the character of being maximally unified and highly meaningful. An experience is a bounded organic whole; when a moment is sufficient to itself, is individualized, this is an experience. In aesthetic experience there is a heightened interest in the factors that constitute an experience, in the experience’s “omnipresent form, in its dynamic construction, in its rhythmic variety and unity.”

Another well known theory touches on aesthetics is Maslow’s hierarchy of need- though it is still debatable regarding this theory. According to Maslow (1968, 1970), human needs are arranged in a hierarchy, and individuals must satisfy their basic needs first, before they can progress to higher needs. In the following diagram, higher levels in the pyramid represent progressive less basic needs, people progress upward into hierarchy when lower needs are satisfied. In the diagram, the aesthetic needs for order and beauty is the second highest in the progressive hierarchy. Does it mean that the general sensory account of beauty happens in the lower level of needs that according to Maslow, won’t be seen as aesthetic beauty or “an experience” as Dewey called it? Or such a high level of aesthetic needs have the similar statewide progress similar to Parsons’ fourth or fifth stage of artistic understanding?

Seemingly, Maslow’s aesthetic needs of beauty and order might not be located in the sensory level of pleasure. It is artistic!

Figure 1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Dickie (1919) once argued that psychology was not relevant to aesthetics by attacking Bullough’s view by denying that there is any one thing that we can identify as the aesthetic attitude. Perhaps, he is one among the minority side. D.H. Feldman (1980) remarks that art appreciation and the production of art are developmental phenomena. They have in common that they are achieved through sequences of stages or levels, catalyzed by sets of specialized cultural conditions. DiBasio (1997) points out the consequences of the cognitive revolution provided an advantage of using of symbol system that bears directly on the aesthetic forms of human experience and on the mechanisms of metaphoric expression. Art does harvest from the psychological research, in particular from the cognitive domain!

In addition to the aforementioned beauty perceived in general term, on the other hand, taste or aesthetic experience and judgment is conditioned mainly by culture, which is less likely to reduce art to any set of judgments. For example, the calligraphy of Si-Zhi Wang of Tang Dynasty is the most aesthetically beautiful works of art in Far Eastern Asia from my socio-cultural perspective. Each calligraphic character might not arouse the sense of artistic beauty from an audience of an alien culture.

Battin et al. (1989) points out that a good many theories of art, in fact less concerned ultimately with to definitional than with the contextual. They argue that liking or disliking a thing may be a necessary condition of its being judged to be beautiful, but it is not a sufficient condition. Wittengstein argues that in searching for approval for judgments creates the questions, such as criteria approved by whom, and who should join the approving group. This is a potential leading to the institutional theories of arts (Barrett, 1966). Kant too, analyzes beauty mainly by characterizing its inward effects rather than its outward causes. He remarks that judgments of beauty is “subjectively” universal. H.W. Janson infers that we cannot escape viewing works of art and judging the beautiful in the context of time and circumstance, whether past or present (1991).

Danto introduced the term “art world” (1964) as “to see something as art requires …. A knowledge of what other works the given work fits with, a knowledge of what other works makes a giver work possible (Danto, 1997). He also argues that the art world of the twentieth century was epitomized by cognition and by challenge, such as the challenge to the very definition of art: for examples, Dadaism, and Pop Art. Later it expanded into conceptual art, challenged the concepts of values. Mapplethorpe, Rene Serrano, Richard Serra, Damien Hurst, Christopher Ofili, and a host of others have presented works that confront and provoke the viewers. They assail our values and the contexts in which we hold those particular values (Fenner, 2003). These value-challenging aesthetics is undeniable.

Fenner points to an eighteenth-century movement in aesthetic theory from

formalist, objective accounts of beauty to subject-based, experiential accounts of

beauty. He argues that an emphasis away from the production of beauty to what he calls the “artistic” or the “artistically important” is the main theme of the Modern Art. And he suggests that the reason for this is the move toward subjectivism in analyses of what counts as beauty (Fenner, 2003). This is what I believe that the main difference between general concept of beauty and artistic beauty lying in the contextualized understanding. Fenner also proposes a framework to contextualize the meaning and experience of aesthetics which I reorganized into the following concept map:

According to his framework, experiencing an aesthetic object, the various contexts provide different dimensional aesthetic experience and judgments.

Conclusion
As we know the enterprise of aesthetic judgment is highly complicated. The writer differentiates the major differences between the concept of beauty and artistic beauty. The former refers to general pleasure response of aesthetic experience. The latter points to particular artistic endeavors, progressing from retinal toward cerebral aesthetic experience and judgments that is highly contextualized.

References

Battin M, Fisher J, Moore. R, and Silvers A. (1989). Puzzles about Art- An Aesthetics
Case Book. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Clover, F, and Erickson, M. (1997). Viewpoints: Exploring how we understand art.
On ArtEdNet posted by the J. Paul Getty Trust [Available Online]
http://www.getty.edu/artsednet/resources/Viewpoints/index.htm

Danto. A.C. (1997). After the end of art: Contemporary art and the pale of history.
Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Danto. A.C. (1986). The End of Art in The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Danto, A.C. (1964) the art world. Journal of Philosophy, 62(190, 571.

Davis, J. & Gardner, H. (2000). Symbolic literacies: the Developmental portrait research
         has produced. In R.S. smith (Ed), readings in discipline-based art education: A
         literature of educational reform (pp.257-263). Reston, VA: National Art education
         Association.

Dewey, J. (1934), Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn Books, Putnam’s Sons.

DiBlasio, M. (1997). Essay Review: Harvesting the Cognitive Revolution:
Reflections on the Arts, Education, and Aesthetic Knowing. Journal of
Aesthetic Education. Vol. 31, No1.

Dickie, G. (1919) Is Psychology Relevant to Aesthetics? See also E. Bullough’s
The Relation of Aesthetics to Psychology, British Journal of Psychology 10
(1919).

Foster, A, & Blau, J, (1989), Art and Society – Reading in the Sociology of the Arts. New
York: State Univeristy of New York Press.

Fenner, D. (2003). Aesthetic Experience and Aesthetic Judgments. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, Vol. 37, No. 1.

Fenner, D (2005). Why Was There So Much Ugly Art in the Twentieth Century?
Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 39, No. 2.

Feldman, D.H. (1980). Beyond universals in cognitive development. Norwood,
NJ:Albex.

Housen, A. (2000) Museums in an age of pluralism. In R.S. smith (Ed), readings in
discipline-based art education: A literature of educational reform (pp.281-7).
Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Francis Hutcheson, F. (1971). An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and
Virtue. New York: Garland.

Jason, W. H. (1991). History of Art, 4th ed. New York: ARS/SPADEM

Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand

Maslow, A (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Myers, D. (2004). Exploring Psychology, New York: Worth Publishers.

Parsons, M.J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive account of the development of
aesthetic understanding. New York: Cambridge University press.

Ruskin, J. (1906). Modern Painters. Vol. 1, 3rd ed. (New York; Thomas Crowell, ) p. 101

Shaftesbury, A. (1964). Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. New York:
Bobbs-Merrill.

Weiten, W. and Lloyd, M. (2000). Psychology applied to modern life. CA: Wadsworth/
Thomson learning. P.49.

Wittgenstein, L. (1966). Lectures and conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology,
andreligious Beliefs, ed. C. Barett. Oxford: Blackwell.