Subject: The Aesthetic [was RE: Daumier-Smith and Empathy]
From: Cecilia Baader (ceciliabaader@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jul 30 2001 - 17:43:37 GMT
--- ZazieZazie@hetnet.nl wrote:
>
> I myself think that if NOBODY says what you do is art, it's not art.
> I know it's difficult to give a 'scientific' definition of art, but i
> would like your opinion about this.
This reminded me of something that I once read, and with the help of
concorcance.com, I have found the quote that I am seeking. Perhaps the
best discussion of "What is Art?" that I have ever come across is in
James Joyce's THE PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN. The whole
book, perhaps, can be considered a discussion of this issue, but the
scene which came to mind is that in which young Stephen Daedalus, the
"artist", meets his Jesuit teacher as that teacher is in the process of
making a fire. What follows is a terrific Pater-influenced discussion
on art and aestheticism (note: all translations are mine, based upon a
years-old understanding of schoolgirl Latin):
-- You are an artist, are you not, Mr Dedalus? said the dean,
glancing up and blinking his pale eyes. The object of the
artist is the creation of the beautiful. What the beautiful is
is another question.
He rubbed his hands slowly and drily over the difficulty.
-- Can you solve that question now? he asked.
-- Aquinas, answered Stephen, says pulcra sunt quae visa placent.
[trans. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," CB.]
-- This fire before us, said the dean, will be pleasing to the
eye. Will it therefore be beautiful?
-- In so far as it is apprehended by the sight, which I suppose
means here esthetic intellection, it will be beautiful. But
Aquinas also says Bonum est in quod tendit appetitus.
[trans. "Good is what one needs," CB.]
In so far as it satisfies the animal craving for warmth
fire is a good. In hell, however, it is an evil.
The discussion continues from there ... it's worth the read, if you've
got the time. I think, though, that it's a good basis for a definition
of art. Art is beauty. But what, then, is beauty? Joyce works on a
definition that fairly boggles the mind. Keats asserts that "Beauty is
truth," so what might follow is that if you accept Joyce's view that art
is beautiful, then art is truth. So what is true is art.
I'm not uncomfortable with that definition.
Regards,
Cecilia.
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 15:29:40 GMT