structure for 'Aesthetics'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

21. Aesthetics / B. Nature of Art / 4. Art as Expression

[personal expression is the essence of art]

19 ideas
Art aims only at beauty, of form, of idea, and (above all) of expression [Winckelmann, by Tolstoy]
     Full Idea: According to Winckelmann, the law and aim of all art is beauty, independent of goodness. The three kinds of beauty are of form, of idea, and of expression (the highest aim, attainable only when the other two are present).
     From: report of Johann Winckelmann (History of Ancient Art [1764]) by Leo Tolstoy - What is Art? Ch.3
     A reaction: This sounds very like 'art for art's sake', but a hundred years earlier. This is quite a good distinction, and I particularly like the 'beauty of idea', which is often overlooked.
Objects can be beautiful which express nothing at all, such as the rainbow [Herbart, by Tolstoy]
     Full Idea: Objects are often beautiful which express nothing at all, as, for instance, the rainbow, which is beautiful for its lines and colours and not for its mythological connexion with Iris, or Noah's rainbow.
     From: report of Johann Herbart (works [1830]) by Leo Tolstoy - What is Art? Ch.3
     A reaction: A nice counterexample to Tolstoy's own theory. The example is one of a natural beauty, but it would be harder to find examples in human art. How much the artist may feel, though, has little to do with the success of a work of art.
The highest feelings of mankind can only be transmitted by art [Tolstoy]
     Full Idea: The highest feelings to which mankind has attained can only be transmitted from man to man by art.
     From: Leo Tolstoy (What is Art? [1898], Ch.17)
     A reaction: We are much more nervous these days of talking about 'highest' feelings. Tolstoy obviously considers religion to be an ingredient of the highest feelings, but that prevents us from judging them purely as feelings. Music is the place to rank feelings.
Art is when one man uses external signs to hand on his feelings to another man [Tolstoy]
     Full Idea: Art is a human activity in which one man consciously by means of external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and other are infected by those feelings, and also experience them.
     From: Leo Tolstoy (What is Art? [1898], Ch.5)
     A reaction: Such definitions always work better for some art forms than for others. This may fit 'Anna Karenin' quite well, but probably not Bach's 'Art of Fugue'. Writing obscenities on someone's front door would fit this definition.
True works of art transmit completely new feelings [Tolstoy]
     Full Idea: Only that is a true work of art which transmits fresh feelings not previously experienced by man.
     From: Leo Tolstoy (What is Art? [1898], Ch.9)
     A reaction: I think a great composer will probably not have any new feelings at all, but will discover new expressions which contain feelings by which even they are surprised (e.g. the Tristan chord).
Artists are not especially passionate, but they pretend to be [Nietzsche]
     Full Idea: Artists are by no means people of great passion, but they often pretend to be.
     From: Friedrich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human [1878], 211)
     A reaction: Presumably people can gradually become what they consistently pretend to be.
The experience of expression and communication are intermingled in art [Croce]
     Full Idea: It is very difficult to perceive the frontier between expression and communication in actual fact, for the two processes usually alternate rapidly and are almost intermingled.
     From: Benedetto Croce (The Essence of Aesthetic [1912]), quoted by Gary Kemp - Croce and Collingwood
     A reaction: [text unsure] I think he is getting at seeing the painting (or whatever) as a physical object, and seeing it as the experience which results from the object. The alternation of the objective and subjective views. Reminds me of Thomas Nagel.
The only expression art could have is the emotion resulting from pure form [Bell,C]
     Full Idea: If art expresses anything, it expresses an emotion felt for pure form and that which gives pure form its extraordinary significance.
     From: Clive Bell (Art [1913], III.I)
     A reaction: I don't think 'expresses' is the right word here. Artists express, but works just transmit. I personally doubt whether anything can have 'extraordinary significance' simply because it expresses one particular emotion. Why art, but not geometry?
The emotion expressed is non-conscious, but feels oppressive until expression relieves it [Collingwood]
     Full Idea: The emotion expressed is one of whose nature the person feeling it is no longer conscious. As unexpressed, he feels it in a helpless and oppressed way; as expressed, the oppression has vanished. His mind is somehow lightened and eased.
     From: R.G. Collingwood (The Principles of Art [1938], p.110), quoted by Gary Kemp - Croce and Collingwood 1
     A reaction: It sounds like the regular smoking of cigarettes. This is Collingwood answer the doubts I felt about Idea 20419. I would have thought the desire of Picasso was to create another painting, but not to express yet another new oppressive feeling.
It is claimed that the expressive properties of artworks are non-physical [Wollheim]
     Full Idea: The argument that works of art have properties that physical objects could not have characteristically concentrates on the expressive properties of works of art.
     From: Richard Wollheim (Art and Its Objects [1968], 10)
     A reaction: Since the idea of an object having non-physical properties strikes me as ridiculous, this gets off to a bad start. If artworks are abstract objects, then all of their properties are non-physical.
Some say art must have verbalisable expression, and others say the opposite! [Wollheim]
     Full Idea: The view that a work of art expresses nothing if it can't be put into other words ...is reduced by the view that a work of art has no value if what it expresses or says can be put into (other) words.
     From: Richard Wollheim (Art and Its Objects [1968], 49)
     A reaction: I prefer the second view. Poetry is what is lost in translation. Good art actually seems to evoke emotions which one virtually never feels in ordinary life. But how could that be possible? What are those emotions doing there?
Croce says art makes inarticulate intuitions conscious; rival views say the audience is the main concern [Scruton]
     Full Idea: The Croce model is of an inarticulate inner state (an 'intuition') becoming articulate and conscious through artistic expression. The rival model is fitting thing together so as to create links which resonate in the audience's feelings.
     From: Roger Scruton (Beauty: a very short introduction [2011], 5)
     A reaction: The first model tells you nothing about how the artist imagines the audience reacting. The second model tells you nothing about what matters personally to the artist. A good theory must do both!
Romantics say music expresses ideas, or the Will, or intuitions, or feelings [Scruton]
     Full Idea: According to the Romantic theory music was an expression of something, of an idea (Hegel), of the Will (Schopenhauer), of 'intuitions' (Croce), or of feelings (Collingwood).
     From: Roger Scruton (The Nature of Musical Expression [1981], p.54)
     A reaction: Deryck Cooke was the culmination of music as expression of feeling, and Stravinsky was the greatest rebel against the whole idea of expression in music. You can set out to create interesting music which does or does not grab the emotions.
Reference without predication is the characteristic of expression [Scruton]
     Full Idea: Characteristic of expression is the presence of 'reference' without predication.
     From: Roger Scruton (Representation in Music [1976], p.71)
     A reaction: This echoes (in linguistic terms) Kant's thought that art is 'purposive without purpose'. The remark is comfortable in an essay on music, but it gets more tricky when the topic is literature, or even representational painting.
Expression can be either necessary for art, or sufficient for art (or even both) [Kemp]
     Full Idea: Seeing art as expression has two components: 1) if something is a work of art, then it is expressive, 2) if something is expressive, then it is a work of art. So expression can be necessary or sufficient for art. (or both, for Croce and Collingwood).
     From: Gary Kemp (Croce and Collingwood [2012], 1)
     A reaction: I take the idea that art 'expresses' the feelings of an artist to be false. Artists are more like actors. Nearly all art has some emotional impact, which is of major importance, but I don't think 'expression' is a very good word for that.
We don't already know what to express, and then seek means of expressing it [Kemp]
     Full Idea: One cannot really know, or be conscious of, what it is that one is going to express, and then set about expressing it; indeed if one is genuinely conscious of it then one has already expressed it.
     From: Gary Kemp (Croce and Collingwood [2012], 1)
     A reaction: That pretty conclusively demolishes the idea that art is expression. I picture Schubert composing at the piano: he doesn't feel an emotion, and then hunt for its expression on the keyboard; he seeks out expressive phrases by playing.
The horror expressed in some works of art could equallly be expressed by other means [Kemp]
     Full Idea: The horror or terror of Edvard Much's 'The Scream' could in principle be expressed by different paintings, or even by works of music.
     From: Gary Kemp (Croce and Collingwood [2012], 1)
     A reaction: A very good simple point against the idea that the point of art is expression. It leaves out the very specific nature of each work of art!
Music may be expressive by being 'associated' with other emotional words or events [Davies,S]
     Full Idea: One view explains music's expressiveness as 'associative'. Through being regularly associated with emotionally charged words or events, particular musical ideas become associated with emotions or moods.
     From: Stephen Davies (The Philosophy of Art (2nd ed) [2016], 6.4)
     A reaction: This is a more promising theory. I take the feeling in music to be parasitic on other feelings we have, and other triggers that evoke them. I'm particularly struck with story-telling (which Levinson and Robinson also like).
It seems unlikely that sad music expresses a composer's sadness; it takes ages to write [Davies,S]
     Full Idea: The 'expression theory' holds that if music is sad that is because it expresses the composer's sadness, ...but composers take a long time composing sad works, and may even been gleeful at receiving payment for it.
     From: Stephen Davies (The Philosophy of Art (2nd ed) [2016], 6.4)
     A reaction: [compressed] Pretty conclusive. I see composing as like acting. Just as you can put on a happy or sad face, so a composer can discover music that feels sad or happy. Three movement sonatas don't fit expression at all.