J o ž e f M u h o v ič
Art <-> Aesthetics <-> Philosophy
I. Introduction
T h e issue discussed in this c o n trib u tio n is th e logic o f re la tio n s b etw een art, aesthetics a n d p hilosophy in th e ir practical, everyday in te ra c tio n s, w hich is, in my o p in io n , a topical q u estio n fo r two reason s at least. First, b ecau se th e p o s tm o d e rn era, o scillating betw een th e cu lt o f th e ra d ic al d is tin c tio n b etw een p h e n o m e n a a n d th e o p p o sin g c u lt o f th e ir p ra g m a tic (c o n ) fusion, is itself callin g o u t fo r an a p p ro p ria te answ er. A n d second, as an ind iv id ual e n g a g e d in a r t th eo ry a n d p ractice, I am in te re ste d in th e logical co n d itio n s u n d e r w hich art, aesthetics a n d p h ilo so p h y can - if a t all - m u tu ally s u p p o rt a n d in sp ire o n e a n o th e r in estab lish in g th e m ost d ire c t c o n ta c t w ith reality, w hich is th e ir »subject«, w ith o u t losing th e ir a u to n o m y .1
II. Exposition: Mini-definitions
A fu n d a m e n ta l step in studying re la tio n s is th e id en tific a tio n a n d defi
n itio n o f th e ir con stitu tiv e elem e n ts. A n d this is alread y th e first crucial p ro b le m e n c o u n te re d in e x p lo rin g th e re la tio n s betw een art, aesthetics a n d philosop hy. It is gen erally know n th at, b ecause o f th e ir n a tu re a n d co m plexity, a single a n d u ltim a te d e fin itio n o f these fields is n o t possible. B ut if I am to p ro c e e d , I have n o o th e r ch o ice b u t to risk som e elementary defm i- 1 It is certain that by far the most competent individual for enlightening the issue
discussed would be someone who is equally talented, educated and creative in all three fields, i.e. in the arts, philosophy and aesthetics, in the deepest sense of these words. Despite having studied all three fields, I do not fee! entirely qualified to fulfil this criterion, as I am creatively active only in the fine arts. And so, in attempting to explore the logic of relations between art, aesthetics and philosophy, I have consciously or unconsciously resorted to certain professional apriorisms and thus my view of the problem will most likely appear biased. Nevertheless, there are two reasons why I dare to present my personal conclusions to the public. The first is that I shall explicitly support my findings, allowing others to verify them at all times. And second, I consider a public presentation to be the best opportunity to have my views made more complex or rejected, with arguments, of course.
tions o f these th re e fields. In spite o f all th e d a n g e rs involved. In o r d e r to c a p tu re th e p h e n o m e n o n as a w hole a n d p re s e n t its essence in a few w ords o r sen ten c es, it will be necessary to m ake re d u c tio n s, sim plificatio ns a n d a rb itra ry syntheses, all o f w hich can easily le a d to vague, in c o m p le te o r over
sim p lified results.
N ev ertheless, I d a re to ask (myself): W h a t a re th e e le m e n ta ry c h a ra c teristics o f th e p h e n o m e n a d e sig n a te d by th e term s »art«, »aesthetics« a n d
»philosophy«?
1. Art
If o n e d isreg ard s all th e p artic u la ritie s - stem m in g from m ean s o f ex
pre ssio n , tech n ical p ro c e d u re s a n d ways o f th in k in g - w hich m ak e artistic p h e n o m e n a a n d fields d istin g u ish ab le, o n e m ay draw two m axim ally g e n e r
alized conclusions: (a) a r t is th e artic u la tio n a n d activation o f th o u g h ts a n d e m o tio n s w ith th e m e d ia tio n o f sensual equivalen ts a d a p te d to th e m , a n d (b) w orks o f a r t are systems o f o rg a n iz e d sensatio n s (A. A. Moles) p ro v o k in g sym bolic re a c tio n s w h e n e x p e rie n c e d . B oth g en e raliza tio n s show a r t as a special »form o f o p e ra tin g w ith e x p e rien ce « (L . A. White), w hose g o al is to m ak e e x p e rie n c e intelligible simultaneously o n the sensual, e m o tio n a l a n d sp iritu a l levels, a n d th u s h e lp m an to holistically a d a p t to his e n v iro n m e n t.
H ow ever, th e re are two p re c o n d itio n s fo r such o p e ra tin g with ex p e rie n c e : (i) practical sensual co g n itio n , a n d (ii) effective » com m u n icatio n « b etw e en sen su al recognizability a n d c o n c e p tio n a l ab stractio n .
(i) In art, th e c re a tio n o f form s to re p re s e n t th e a rtis t’s e x p e rie n c e a n d to u c h th e th o u g h ts a n d e m o tio n s o f th e p u b lic is always an ac t b ase d o n sensations. Yet this act c a n n o t be realized w ith o u t a kno w ledge o f th e prin cip les o n w hich th e p ro d u c tio n an d o rg anization o f sensations em p lo yed by a specific b ra n c h o f a rt is based. F o r this re aso n , a w ork o f a r t is always th e re su lt o f th e level o f k now ledge o f such p rin c ip le s a n d th e effectiveness o f th e ir a p p lic a tio n in practice. Its c o n te n ts a re n o t only th e c o n te n ts o f th e a r tis t’s th o u g h ts a n d e m o tio n s, b u t also sensual co g n itio n itself. O n e m ay th e re fo re say th a t a rt is th e exp ressio n o f thoughts and emotions by means o f sensual cognition, a n d th a t this fact is th e basic e le m e n t fo r its d e fin itio n .
(ii) I f o n e o f th e d e te rm in in g characteristics o f a r t is e x p ressin g sp ir
itu al c o n te n ts th ro u g h m e d ia tio n o f th e sensual, it is also e v id e n t th a t su ch e x p re ssio n can only fu n c tio n if a rt disposes w ith th e m ean s a n d m e th o d s e n a b lin g th e effective »translation« o f th e sensual in to th e sp iritu a l a n d vice-versa. P ractice has show n th a t a rt m asters such tra n sla tio n superbly.
Even m o re: its artefacts are n o th in g sh o rt o f ex e m p la ry a n d in sp ira tio n a l
Art <-> Aesthetics <-> Philosophy
pro to ty p es o f th e tran slatio n o f th e em p irica l in to th e c o n c e p tu a l a n d ideas in to reality.
In a d d itio n to th e ch aracteristics stem m in g fro m th e re fle c tio n s m ad e, artistic p h e n o m e n a have m any o th e r characteristics a n d aspects w hich will n o t be c o n sid e re d h e re . B ut since th e a rtic u la te d characteristics s h o u ld n o t, in my o p in io n , be m issing in any p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a lly c o n siste n t d e sc rip tio n o f th e differentia specifica o f art, I shall take th e liberty to m ak e th e follow ing m ini-d efm itio n : a rt is th e ex p ressio n o f th o u g h ts a n d e m o tio n s by m ean s o f sen sual co g n itio n ; th e o p e ra tio n a l fo rm o f such ex p re ssio n is th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f sp iritu al c o n te n ts in to an artistic fo rm w ith th e p u rp o s e o f a rtic u la tin g h u m a n e x p e rie n c e in a p o etica l way, sim u ltan e o u sly a d a p te d to the sensual, e m o tio n a l a n d in te lle c tu a l abilities o f m an.
2. Aesthetics
It is g en e rally know n th a t aesthetics was b o rn as a p h ilo so p h ic a l disci
p lin e in th e m id 18th c e n tu ry fro m th e d esire o f system atic p h ilo so p h y to cover o n e o f th e g re a t w hite blu rs o n th e m ap o f its re flectio n s - th e s p h e re o f th e sensual. A. G. Baumgarten in tro d u c e d this d iscip lin e as a p h ilo s o p h i
cal th eo ry o f sensual co g n itio n (scientia cognitionis sensitivae), c o n sid e rin g it to be, to g e th e r w ith logic, an essential p ro p e d e u tic d iscip lin e o f th e o re tic a l a n d p ractical p h ilo so p h y .2 H is fu n d a m e n ta l idea, in sp ire d by th e e n lig h te n m e n t, was th a t c o n c e p tio n a l a n d sensual co g n itio n are two se p a ra te a n d in d e p e n d e n t areas g o v e rn e d by th e ir own u n iq u e p rin c ip le s a n d ru les, a n d th u s m u st b e tre a te d equally by p hilosophy. H e d e v e lo p e d his ae sth e tic s in o rd e r to study, in a p h ilo so p h ic al way, th e sen sual so ig n o re d in th e past, a n d use it to e x p lo re th e im m a n e n t laws o f th e sen sual in a sim ilar way as logic reveals th e laws o f th o u g h t. T h e fu n d a m e n ta l c o n c e p t o f B a u m g a rte n ’s analyses o f th e sensual is »beauty« as th e re p re se n ta tiv e o f th e m o st p e rfe c t form a n d h ig h e st level o f sensual c o g n itio n . A n d b ecau se it is g en e rally believed th at, in art, beau ty ap p e a rs in th e m o st p u rifie d a n d p e rfe c t form s, fo r B a u m g a rte n this m e a n t th a t his aesthetics, as th e » fu n d a m e n ta l analysis o f th e b eau tifu l« , is eo ipso also th e th eo ry o f art.
H e n c e , B a u m g a rte n ’s aesthetics is, a t its co re, »dualistic«. O n o n e side it is a p h ilo so p h ic a l th eo ry o f th e sensual a n d sensual c o g n itio n , a n d o n th e o th e r a p h ilo so p h ic a l th eo ry o f th e b ea u tifu l a n d o f a r t as a n activity o f c re a tin g beauty. T h e su b s e q u e n t d e v e lo p m e n t o f aesth etics g ra s p e d b o th co n c ep ts, c o n tin u in g to develop th e m always in close c o n n e c tio n w ith c u r
r e n t p h ilo so p h ic a l debates.
2 Cf. Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, Aesthetica, Frankfurt a. d. Oder, 1750, § 1-3 (reprint lat./ger. Hildesheim 1961).
My m ini-d efin itio n : aesthetics is a p h ilo so p h ic al th e o ry o f sen sual co g
n itio n in th e b ro a d e s t sense o f th e w ord, a n d c o n sid e rin g th e fact th a t a r t is
»ex p ressin g th ro u g h sensual cog n itio n « , also a p h ilo so p h ic a l th eo ry o f art, o r, m o re precisely, a th eo ry o f th e p h ilo so p h ic al aspects o f art. B o u n d by its su b je c t to th e sensual, a n d by its m eth o d o lo g y to th e h ig h c o n c e p tu a l ab strac tio n o f philosophy, aesthetics o p erates at the in tersec tio n o f th e sp h eres o f in te re s t o f two key h u m a n cognitive abilities: p e rc e p tio n a n d th o u g h t.
T his lo catio n allows it to study th e ir in te ra c tio n s »on its own skin« a n d tre a t th e m »from th e inside«.
3. Philosophy
T h e p ro b le m o f d e fin in g p h ilo so p h y lies in its n a tu re , in th e fact th a t it is n o t possible to o n c e fo r all d e fin e n e ith e r its su b ject (as th e su b ject o f p h ilo so p h iz in g m ay literally b e c o m e everything th a t exists) n o r its universal m e th o d o lo g y (as ea ch new a p p ro a c h to p h ilo so p h iz in g is ipso facto an in v e n tio n o f a new m eth o d o lo g y ) ,3
P h ilo so p h ical sp ec u la tio n begins with th e n o tio n o f »being« (Sein) a n d its s tro n g d istin ctio n from th e n o tio n o f »the existent« (Seiendes). O nly w h en an aw areness o f the u n ity o r o n en e ss o f b e in g awakes in c o n n e c tio n w ith a m u ltitu d e o f th e existing do es a specifically p h ilo so p h ic a l way o f th in k in g a b o u t th e w orld occur. B ut this th in k in g c o n tin u e s to re m a in lin k ed to th e s p h e re o f th e ex isting fo r a co n sid e ra b le tim e. T h e b eg in n in g , o rig in a n d fo u n d a tio n o f th e b e in g is so u g h t in th e sp h e re o f th e existing. F o r p h ilo so phy, th e p a rtic u la r m u st n o t re m a in p artic u la r, b u t s h o u ld b e in c lu d e d as a fu n c tio n a l p a r t in a c e rta in w hole, in a c e rta in u niversal form o f law a n d o rd e r.
T h e re fo re , th e fu n d a m e n ta l p h ilo so p h ic al q u e stio n is how to iden tify a n d a rtic u la te in n o tio n s th e b e in g a n d essence o f th e existing. Since, c o n trary to ex isten ce, b e in g a n d essence d o n o t p re s e n t them selves directly, a n d b ec au se th e h id d e n fo u n d a tio n o f a th in g m u st b e rev ealed by a sp e
cific activity, p h ilo so p h y can only arrive a t an answ er by d e v e lo p in g various cognitive strategies. In ad d ressin g th e q u estio n o f th e b e in g a n d essen ce o f th e existin g, p h ilo so p h y has d ev e lo p e d (a n d c o n tin u e s to d ev elo p) m an y c o n c re te answers. A close lo o k a t th e ir logical s tru c tu re will reveal th a t all 3 From this aspect philosophy, in contrast to other sciences, does not dispose with a fund of generally accepted and conclusive knowledge, or with a specific “introduction to the profession” in the usual sense of the word. More precisely see for example Albrecht Wellmer, Adorno, Anwalt des Nich-Identischen. Eine Einführung, in A. Wellmer, Zur Dalektik von Moderne und Postmoderne (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 51993), p. 135 ff.
A rt <-> Aesthetics o Philosophy
these answers are, in a ce rtain sense, the fru it o f th re e m acro-strategies w hich have d e v e lo p e d th ro u g h th e lo n g h istory o f p h ilo so p h iz in g . I will a d o p t W.
Welsch ’s a p p ro a c h a n d call th e m metaphysical, modernistic a n d postmodernists, a n d , as W e ls c h h a s d o n e , e m p lo y th e n o t i o n s a e sth e tisa tio n a n d anaesthetisation4 to illu strate them .
T h e metaphysical m a c ro -stra te g y is d e fin e d by the b e lie f th a t th e h id d e n fo u n d a tio n o f th e ex istin g can only b e discov ered by p e e lin g o ff as th o ro u g h ly as p o ssib le its se n su a l, a e s th e tic sh ell. T h u s, by m e a n s o f d e a e sth e tisa tio n , w hich d irects us from th e sen sual to th e tra n s c e n d e n ta l, fro m aesthetic (i.e. m ateria l, physical, sensual) to anaesthetic (i.e. n o n se n su a l, reflective, sp iritu al). T h e m etaphysical m o d e l a ttem p ts to m axim ize th e dif
fe re n c e b etw een th e sensual a n d th e tra n sc e n d e n ta l, w hich is why th e p re d i
cates o f th e tra n s c e n d e n ta l sp h e re (non-m ovable, n o n -c h a n g e a b le , n o n - spatial, n o n -te m p o ra l, etc.) are in all cases th e n eg ativ e p re d ic a te s o f th e sen su al sp h e re . T his is also o n e o f th e trap s o f th e m etaphysical m o d e l.5 - O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e modernistic strategy a n n o u n c e s a co m p letely d iffe r
e n t m odel: aesthetisation. T h e b e in g a n d essen ce o f th e ex istin g ca n n o t be re a c h e d by e lim in a tin g th e sensual, b u t, o n th e co n trary , by intensively ex
p lo rin g its m ultiform ity, by » attem p tin g to p e n e tr a te th ro u g h it« (b u t n ev e r successfully, d u e to th e exclusiveness o f a sin gle d ire c tio n a n d a sin g le m a n n e r o f su ch p e n e tr a tio n ). - T h e presen t-d ay postmodernists strategy is seek in g new ways o f revealing th e b e in g a n d essence o f th e existing by fu n c tio n ally lin k in g b o th m od els in o r d e r to avoid th e ir traps. Its m axim is: to g ra ft th e a n a e sth e tic o n th e a e sth e tic 0 a n d »the w hole on ly via d iffe re n c e « .7
T h e re fo re , I m ay briefly sum m arize my view o f th e a c tio n ra n g e o f p h ilo so p h y as follows: p h ilo so p h y is a re fle c te d c o n te m p la tio n o f th e b e in g a n d essen ce o f th e existing, w hich, in its p lurality, a p p e a rs as th e in se p a ra b le u n ity o f th e ae sth e tic a n d the an a esth etic. T h e goal o f p h ilo so p h y is to e x p lo re th e logic o f this u n ity a n d th e c o n c e p tu a l in te g ra tio n o f th e p a r
tic u la r in to a universal w hole. P hilo so p h y attain s this goal by m e th o d ically q u e stio n in g th e ex istin g a n d the know n.
4 Cf. Welsch, Ästhetisches Denken (Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam,jun. Verlag, 1990), pp. 23- 30.
5 Ibid., p. 25.
6 Ibid., pp. 110-111.
1 Cf. Wolfgang Welsch, Unsere Postmoderne Modeme (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 41993), pp. 60-63.
III. Topology o f the Interactive Space 1. Context and its elements
As in c o m p le te as th e d efin itio n s o f art, aesthetics a n d p h ilo so p h y given above m ay seem , they n ev e rth eless p o in t to an in te re stin g situ a tio n . T h ey m ak e it perfectly c le a r th at, in spite o f all o f th e ir radically d iffe re n t o b jec
tives a n d m eth o d s, art, aesthetics a n d p h ilo so p h y have a re co g n izab le c o m m o n d e n o m in a to r: all three deal in one way or another with the relation between the aesthetic and the anaesthetic. - In my o p in io n this very fact is th e p r o p e r basis fo r f u r th e r reflectio n .
In o th e r words, o n e co u ld say th a t th e working space o f art, aesthetics an d p hilo sop hy is th e in tera ctio n area o f the aesth etic a n d the an aesth etic. T h e re fore, I shall first a tte m p t to show how this in te ra c tio n area is m an ifested in m an as the c re a to r o f these arts a n d sciences. - M an, says J. Huxley, is th e indivisible a n d sim u ltan eo u s unity o f m a tte r a n d spirit.” T his m ean s th a t h e lives at th e in tersec tio n o f two worlds a n d th a t m an h im self is th e in tersec tio n o f these two worlds: a closed m aterial w orld, d e te rm in e d by physical im pulses a n d d eterm inism s, a n d an o p e n , spiritual w orld, go v ern ed by th e c o n c e p tu a l flexibility o f th e m in d (intellect) an d the liberty to m ake decisions (will). T h e first w orld existentially attaches m an to »physics« o r »aesthetics« (i.e. to the m aterial a n d sensual objects a n d p h e n o m e n a o f th e real w orld), w hile th e sec o n d links m an to »m etaphysics« o r »anaesthetics« (i.e. to p h e n o m e n a fo u n d e d o n ex p e rien ce , such as substance, prin cip le, essence, rule, law, etc.).
T his a tta c h m e n t m akes m an existentially u n a b le to a b a n d o n n e ith e r th e m ateria l n o r th e sp iritual d im en sio n o f reality w hich h e feels inside him , b u t even m o re, h e extrap o lates th em to th e ex tern al w orld an d recognizes th em as eq u a l a n d equivalent parts o f th e w hole co m p rised o f the w orld a n d th e universe. M an ’s existence is d e p e n d a n t o n th e functional cooperation o f these two w orlds, as the sp irit can only constitute itself o n a »b ackground« o f th e m aterial a n d the sensual, while the m aterial a n d th e sensual can only b ec o m e h u m a n e reality w hen a n im a te d with th e spiritual.
In m an , th e re la tio n betw een th e aesth etic a n d th e an a esth etic p re sen ts itself in c o n c re te form th ro u g h m a n ’s activities. F ro m this a sp e ct o n e co u ld say th a t art, aesthetics a n d p h ilo so p h y are n o th in g m o re th a n operational forms o f exploring re 1 a d o n s betw een the aesth etic a n d th e anaesthetic, a d a p te d
to th e ir specific goals: (a) a r t is a form o f e x p lo rin g re la tio n s b etw e en fo rm a n d c o n te n t, (b) aesth etics is a form o f e x p lo rin g re la tio n s b etw een p e rc e p
8 Cf. Julian Huxley, Essays of a Humanist (London: Penguin Books and Chatto & Windus, 1964), p. 43.
A rt <-> Aesthetics <-> Philosophy
tio n a n d c o g n itio n , a n d (c) p h ilo so p h y is a fo rm o f e x p lo rin g re la tio n s b e tw een m a te ria l a n d spiritu al reality.
My fu n d a m e n ta l q u estio n is, h o w d o th e p artic u la ritie s o f th e se th re e form s o f e x p lo rin g re la tio n s b etw een th e ae sth e tic an d th e a n a e s th e tic in flu e n c e th e ir b e h a v io u r in p ractical everyday interactio n s? D u e to th e vital
ity a n d co m plexity o f th e th re e sp h eres, a conclusive answ er to this q u e stio n is evidently im possible. B ut it is p e rh a p s possible to identify a c e rta in basic logic o f th e ir in tera ctio n s, b o th tho se th a t have b ec o m e h isto rical facts a n d th o se still s lu m b e rin g in th e p o te n c ie s o f th e ir n atu res. F o r this p u rp o s e I will a tte m p t to e n lig h te n th e follow ing relations: (a) philosophy«-» a e sth e t
ics, (b) aesthetics <-> art, a n d (c) a r t philosophy.
2. Philosophy <-> Aesthetics
O f those m e n tio n e d , this relatio n is probably th e m ost c o m p re h e n sib le a n d least problem atic. It is an easily proven fact that, from th e very b eg in ning, even b efo re acquiring its p re s e n t n am e, aesthetics was a p h ilo so p h ical discipline in th e full sense o f the w ord. T his m eans th a t it has always ap
p ro a c h e d its »subjects« (the sensual, beauty, art) in a philosophical way, with th e h elp o f philosophical concepts, an d in co n sonance with th e c u r re n t p h ilo sophical debates. This, o f course, has its consequences. - Every science, in
clu d in g philosophy, has developed a specific corpus o f fu n d a m e n tal con cep ts fo r th e p u rp o se o f studying those co n ten ts w ithin th e sp h e re o f its in terest.
T hus, w hen a certain science throws th e n e t o f its concepts b ey o n d th e reality it is studying, it can catch only those co n ten ts w hich its co n cep ts are able to identify a n d its specific term inology capable o f expressing ( Wittgenstein). For aesthetics as a p hilosophical discipline, this m eans th at it is cap ab le o f ca tc h in g only th e philosophical aspects o f th e realities studied. A nd, o f co urse, reali
ties have m any m o re, equally significant aspects.
3. Aesthetics Art
T h e re la tio n betw een aesthetics a n d a r t is m o re co m p lex a n d co m p li
ca te d , prim arily because this is still an o p e n re la tio n . It m ay b e a p p ro a c h e d fro m two aspects d ictated by th e very history o f aesthetics.
As alread y m e n tio n e d , aesthetics was n o t b o rn of any sp ecial love o f p h ilo so p h e rs fo r art, b u t o f th e ir love fo r philosophy. T h e p u rp o s e o f its in te re st in a rt was to develop a n d test p h ilo so p h ic al them es a n d p ro b lem s, becau se p h ilo so p h y discovered th a t a rt was, fro m its view point, an e x c e lle n t
»modelsphere o f reality« in m o d e rn p h ilo so p h ic al term s.1’ O n e a sp e c t o f th e
9 Cf. Welsch, Ästhetisches Denken, pp. 111-113.
re la tio n b etw een aesth etics a n d a rt is th e in c lin a tio n o f aesth etics tow ards philosop hy: w ith th e h e lp o f aesthetics in art, p h ilo so p h y is searching fo r a path to itself. T h e sec o n d , also historically d o c u m e n te d , b u t m u c h w eak er asp e ct o f this re la tio n is th e in c lin a tio n o f aesthetics tow ards art, a tr e n d a n n o u n c e d by Schiller10 a n d Nietzsche, w hich, in m o d ified fo rm , has e x te n d e d in to o u r p erio d : aesthetics sh o u ld stop b e in g th e maidservant o f philosophy a n d sh o u ld devote itself m o re intensively to its subject.
a. Aesthetics as a »philosophy via art«
T h e re are several reaso n s why, fo r m an y p h ilo so p h ic a l strategies, a r t is a n ex tre m ely usefu l »modelsphere o f reality«. I shall m e n tio n only two, in my o p in io n , key reasons. T h e first is th a t a r t do es n o t e x p lo re th e re la tio n b e tw een th e ae sth e tic a n d a n a e sth e tic in a th e o re tic a l way, b u t establishes it in practice, in its h ig h e st achievem ents, a rt even m a n a g e d to establish su ch re latio n s in an ex e m p la ry (archetypical), p u rifie d (catharsis) a n d h o listic way, again a n d again, a n d em p lo y in g ex trem ely p lu ra l solutions. In this re sp e c t a r t o fte n is, fo r philosophy, a rep resen tativ e o f reality, its c o n c e n tra te d sucus, w hich is co n sid erab ly easier (d esp ite th e difficulties) to d ea l w ith th a n re a l
ity itself. P h ilo so p h e rs co n firm this w hen they say th at, fo r th e m , a r t is an organon w hich o p e n s th e d o o r to th e totality o f reality 11 a n d to its ex tre m ely p lu ra l n a tu r e .12 T h e se c o n d re aso n is th a t a r t as a p h e n o m e n o n is so very c o m p le x a n d as a g e n e ra l n o tio n such a flexible a re a th a t practically any p h ilo so p h ic a l th e o ry can be tested a n d p ro v e n in this area.
If I a tte m p t to schem atically p re s e n t th e ae sth etic strateg y o f »p hiloso
p h y via art«, I c o u ld say th a t its basic p u rp o se is th e p h ilo so p h ic al tre a tm e n t o f th e re la tio n b etw e en ae sth e tic a n d a n a e sth e tic in th e totality o f th e exist
ing. B ut since u n p leasa n tly extensive a n d u n p u rifie d reality m akes th e tre a t
m e n t o f this re la tio n difficult, p h ilo so p h y a tte m p ts to attain th e sam e goal indirectly: th ro u g h th e in te ra c tio n o f a rt (as a re p re s e n ta tio n a l » m odel« o f u n p le a s a n t reality) a n d aesthetics (as a p h ilo so p h y o p e n to th e sen su al).
T h e goal o f aesth etics w ith such o rie n ta tio n is to develop, in c o n fro n t
in g art, th e co n c ep ts, reflective strategies a n d m e th o d s th a t will h e lp p h i
losophy to establish clo ser con tacts w ith its subjects. F o r this re a so n it is r e q u ir e d to p ro v id e answ ers to p articu larly c e rta in m ajo r (e p istem o lo g ical a n d o n to lo g ic al) q u estio n s o f philosoph y, o r even »em pirically« d e fe n d c e rta in already fo rm u la te d g e n e ra l p h ilo so p h ic al theses a n d positions. Even 10 Cf. W. Welsch, Traditionelle und moderne Ästhetik in ihrem Verhältnis zur Praxis der Kunst.
Überlegungen zur Funktion des Philosophen an Kunsthochschulen, in Zeitschrift für Ästhetik u n d allgem eine K unstwissenschaft, vol. X X V III/2 (1983), p. 265.
11 Cf. ibid. p. 266.
12 Cf. Welsch, Ästhetisches Denken, pp. 111-113.
Art <-> Aesthetics <-> Philosophy
w h e n it is r e s e a r c h o r i e n t e d . L e t m e m a k e th e fo llo w in g a n a lo g y : ae sth e tic ia n s o f this p ro v e n ie n c e have a sim ilar a ttitu d e tow ards a r t as a rt
ists d o tow ards n a tu re - they c o n sid e r it th e so u rc e o f (p h ilo so p ical) m o tives a n d in sp iratio n s.
In this p ersp ectiv e b o th a rt a n d aesthetics a re tre a te d in stru m en tally . b. Aesthetics as a philosophical inclination towards art
A d iffe re n t a ttitu d e tow ards a rt (a n d , o f course, tow ard them selves) is fo stered by ae sth e tic th eories, w hich I co n d itio n ally re fe r to as »art-devoted«
th eo ries. T h ese th eo rie s declaratively a b a n d o n th e p o sitio n s o f p h ilo s o p h i
cal in stru m e n ta liz a tio n o f a r t a n d aesthetics, a n d a tte m p t to a p p ro a c h a rt bec au se o f a r t itself. T hey a tte m p t to m e e t a r t in its w o rk in g e n v iro n m e n t, a n d are w illing to view things from its p ersp ectiv e a n d c o n te m p la te a rt th ro u g h th e d io p te r o f formative experience. T h e re are several re a so n s fo r su ch an o p e n inclination o f aesthetics tow ards art. O n e o f th e m ain reaso n s is, in th e o p in io n o f follow ers o f this ae sth e tic tre n d , th a t a r t w ith its b ro a d ra n g e o f resu lts has re a c h e d far b ey o n d th e b o u n d a rie s o f its ow n sp h e re ; n o t, as in classical aesthetics, regressively to th e field o f p h ilo so p h y , b u t progressively to th e field o f life.13 M ore specifically, in m o d e rn civilization, m o d e rn a r t has g re a t diagnostic, th e ra p e u tic a n d d e v e lo p m e n t p o te n tia ls to fu n c tio n as a » lab o ra to ry o f sen su al c o g n itio n « , as a n in d is p e n sa b le m o d e lsp h e re o f re flectio n o n th e sensual an d , co n se q u en tly , o f m o d e rn self-u n d e rsta n d in g .14 (H ow ever, it c a n n o t be d is re g a rd e d th a t even w h ere th e re a p p e a rs to be a sin cere desire to b rin g aesthetics clo se r to art, th e re are still in stru m e n ta liz a tio n a l m otives im m ed iately b e n e a th th e su rfa ce).
T h e fu n d a m e n ta l m otive o f art-d ev o ted aesthetics is to analytically ex
p la in th e c o n c re te fo rm ativ e strategies, d e v e lo p m e n t a n d social-critical p o te n tia ls o f e a c h b ra n c h o f art. Arts also explicitly wish to b e - a n d this is su p p o sed ly even a c rite rio n o f th e ir m o d e rn e n e ss - useful in th e p ro c ess o f th e ir creative se lf-re fle c tio n a n d self-articulation. Any d o g m atism a n d any n o rm ativism are explicitly e x c lu d e d ; fro m this aspect, th e ro le o f ae sth e tic s sh o u ld be lim ited solely to th a t o f a »m aieutic fe rm en t« (W elsch).
At this d elica te p o in t, art-devoted aesthetics always e n c o u n te r difficul
ties d u e to th e very » ontological d iffe ren c e« b etw een th e two fields, if I am allow ed to em p lo y such p h ilo so p h ic al diction.
T h e first p ro b le m is in th e fact th a t aesthetics can study a r t o n ly w h en a r t is alread y artic u la te d . B ecause a rt is co n tin u o u sly re c re a tin g itse lf by 13 Cf. Friedrich Nietzsche, Geburt der Tragödie,in Kritische Gesamausgabe vol. I I I / 1, ed.
G. Colli and M. Montinari (Berlin/New York 1977), p. 8.
14 Cf. Welsch, Traditionelle u n d moderne Ästhetik in ihrem Verhältnis zu r P raxis der K u n st,pp.
272-273.
d e fin in g itself a n d thus e x h a u stin g its creative abilities, aesthetics o nly gets th e o p p o rtu n ity to study it post festum. In o th e r words: a rt has to die (in th e creative sense) so th a t aesthetics can dissect (analize) it. T h e p rim a ry posi
tio n o f a n ae sth e tic ia n in re la tio n to a r t is th e p o sitio n o f th e user, n o t th e p ro d u c e r. A nd, as P. Valery writes in his fam o u s Cours de la poïétique, th e p ro d u c e r a n d th e u s e r are two essentially s e p a ra te d systems. F or th e first, th e p ro d u c t is th e e n d , a n d fo r th e sec o n d th e b eg in n in g , o f d ev e lo p m e n t.
T h e ideas w hich th e two o f th e m have re g a rd in g th e sam e w ork o f a r t are n o t c o m p a tib le .15 V aléry’s th eo ry o f ab so lu te d iffe ren c e m ay b e ex a g g er
a te d , yet I n ev e rth eless s u p p o rt th e o p in io n th a t th e d ifferen ces b etw e en th e a ttitu d e s o f an artist a n d an ae sth e tic ia n tow ards a w ork o f a r t s h o u ld be c o n sid e re d . A n a e sth e tic ia n is - nam ely as an ae sth e tic ia n , irresp ectiv e o f his actually a ttitu d e tow ards a rt - th e u ser o f a w ork o f art, a lth o u g h so m e
w h a t special, a u se r a posteriori c o n d e m n e d w ithin th e lim its o f his p o s itio n a n d his p h ilo so p h ic a l roots.
A n ae sth e tic ia n is, o n th e o n e side, always too late to tell a c re a tin g artist w h at to lo o k fo r a n d c reate, b ecause w h e n aesth e tic ia n s finally dis
cover, th ro u g h in vestigation, w hat this is, th e ir discoveries are n o lo n g e r sig n ifican t fo r th e p ro d u c e r o f a rt (th e very m o m e n t a rt stops w alking in fro n t o f aesthetics, it w ould n o lo n g er be art, b u t w ould re tu rn am o n g crafts).
Like a p h ilo s o p h e r, an a e sth e tic ia n search es fo r th e p h ilo so p h ic a l es
sen c e o f art, w hich is why h e finds it d ifficult to sim u ltan eo u sly tak e aes
th e tic p le a su re in a w ork o f art. His in te re st is d ev o ted to th e p h ilo so p h ic a l aspects o f a w ork o f a r t (a n d n o t its im m a n e n t artistic a sp e c ts), th o u g h th e p u rp o s e a n d m e a n in g o f a w ork o f a rt are n ev e r e x h a u ste d by th em . An a e s th e tic ia n ’s » in frastru ctu ral« p h ilo so p h ic al system re p re se n ts a b a rrie r betw e en h im a n d a w ork o f art.
T his brings us to th e se c o n d obstacle p re v e n tin g aesth etics fro m b e in g d irectly useful to a rt in th e creative sense. A esthetics as a p h ilo so p h ically formatted th eo ry ca n nev er, in any fo rm , be n e u tra l tow ards art. It favours precisely th o se c o n te n ts, form s, functions, p ro b lem s, etc. in a rt w h ich stem fro m th e categ o ries a n d axiom s o f its p h ilo so p h ic al background. T h e basic m e th o d em p lo y ed by ae sth etician s in re la tio n to a r t co u ld th e re fo re b e schem atically d e sc rib e d as follows: first o f all they id entify a n d d e lin e a te , d e p e n d in g o n th e categ o ries a n d axiom s o f th e ir p h ilo so p h ic al in fra s tru c tu re , th e a re a o f a rt w hich these categories a n d axiom s are ca p ab le o f cover
ing, p ro c la im this a re a as art, a n d th e n , w ith in su ch a re stric te d area, at
te m p t to prove a n d »prove« th a t this is »true« art. Artists also u se th e sam e
15 Cf. B. Ghiselin, The Creative Process (London: A Mentor Book, 1961), p. 96.
Art <-> Aesthetics <-> Philosophy
m e th o d w hen, th ro u g h th e ir w ork, th ey d e lin e a te th a t p a r t o f reality w hich they are ab le to c a p tu re w ith th e ir m ean s a n d m o d es o f e x p ressio n , a n d sh a p e it as th e ir (artistic) reality. Evidently, a co n sid e ra b le a m o u n t o f re a l
ity re m a in s o n th e ou tsid e a n d is left to fu tu re g e n e ra tio n s o f artists, w ho usually fin d th e ir u n cu ltiv ated fields precisely o n this » re m a in d er« . N a tu re, i.e. th e real w orld, is such an extensive a re a th a t it c a n n o t b e fully e x h a u s te d by any art, n o r can any aesthetics em b ra c e a r t in all its d im e n s io n s.16
T h e m o d e l o f ae sth e tic in c lin a tio n tow ards a r t co u ld b e schem atically p re s e n te d as follows: aesthetics tries to take a tru e in te re st in art, b u t o n this p a th it im plicitly drags in stru m en talizatio n al in te n tio n s ju s tifie d in its p h ilo so p h ical b a c k g ro u n d .
O n th e o n e side o n e has to a d m it th at, d esp ite th e »fatal a ttra c tio n « th a t b in d s th e m , a rt a n d aesthetics are n everth eless two very d iffe re n t sp ir
itual p o stu res, ea ch w ith its own ca teg o rical a p p a ra tu s a n d way o f th in k in g . T h e co n c ep ts a n d categories w hich they occasionally le n d to o n e a n o th e r usually c h a n g e th e ir c h a ra c te r as so o n as they are in te g ra te d in a specific system o f artistic o r p h ilo so p h ic al th o u g h t. O n th e o th e r side, th e re is n o d e n y in g th a t it m ay be assum ed, w ith o u t ex a g g era tin g , th a t in re la tio n to art, aesth etics has fa r from u tilized all its reflexive p o te n tia ls a n d th a t all g re a t a rt also has philosophical d im en sions.
c. Aesthetics as a philosophical »centralizing on art«
T his last a p p ro a c h is, in my o p in io n , a n o p p o rtu n ity fo r fu tu re in te r
d isciplinary shifts in th e re la tio n b etw een a rt a n d aesthetics. I have desig
n a te d th ese shifts w ith th e exp ressio n »centralizin g o n art«. In p ra c tic e they a re n o t n u m e ro u s, b u t may be e x p e c te d w h erev er (1) aesth etics b eg in s to realize th a t artistic h a p p e n in g s are n o t m erely a reflectio n o f its p h ilo so p h i
cal b ac k g ro u n d , an d , with th e reflexive e x p e rie n c e it possesses, it m akes itself available to th e artist as a c o lla b o ra to r in the p u rific a tio n a n d a rtic u la tion o f th e a rtis t’s form ative th o u g h ts a n d d esire s,17 a n d (2) th e th e o rie s th a t have autochthonously grow n from individu al discip lin es o f a r t d ev elop to a level o f c o n c e p tu a l consistency allow ing th em to establish fru itfu l con- 16 Today it is becoming increasingly more clear that it is not possible to generalize and
systematize all artistic expressions and styles in a single philosophical system. In the same way as philosophical systems differ among themselves, so do artistic expressions and the valuations of the world and life expressed in them. Only those aesthetic trends that grow from the same life substance and the same valuation of the world as artistic systems of expression are able to merge with them into sufficiently hom ogeneous reflective and paradigm atic em otional systems which allow understanding and mutual fertilizing.
17 Cf. W. Welsch, Traditionelle u n d moderne Ästhetik in ihrem Verhältnis z u r P raxis der K un st,
p. 280.
c e p tu a l c o n ta c t w ith aesth etics as a p h ilo so p h ic al d iscipline. T h e re fo re , I ca n see th e persp ectiv e in th e interactiv e lin k in g o f an e m a n c ip a te d aes
th e tic th e o ry p re p a re d to o ffer a rt its reflexive p h ilo so p h ic a l services in th e sp h e re o f a r t ’s » p h ilo so p h ic al dim en sio n s« , a n d a th e o ry o f a rt th a t will give access to p h ilo so p h ic a l re flectio n a n d in sp ire aesth etics fo r th e re fle c tio n o f th e artistic, ae sth e tic d im en sio n s (i.e. b o u n d to th e sensu al a sp e c t o f a c e rta in b ra n c h o f art) o f arts.
F o r aesthetics, c e n tra liz in g o n a r t do es n o t m e a n ste p p in g fro m o n e fo rm o f slavery (m aid o f p h ilosophy) in to a n o th e r (m aid o f a rt), b u t fully d ev o tin g itself to its »subject« a n d giving back to a rt w hat it m a n a g e d to
» tear away« fro m a rt in p u rifie d form by th e sw eat o f its face. A n ae sth e tic s w hich m an ag es to re a c h th e tip o f th e b ru sh , chisel a n d h ea rt...
3. Art <-> Philosophy
In its re la tio n w ith art, p h ilo so p h y can , in my o p in io n , equ ally utilize all th re e m acro strateg ies accessible th ro u g h aesthetics: instrumental (p h i
lo so p h y via a rt), metainstrumental (p h ilo so p h ical in c lin a tio n tow ards art) a n d phenomenological o r investigative (p h ilo so p h ical c e n tralizin g o n a rt). D e
p e n d in g , o f co u rse, o n th e circu m stan ces a n d c u r r e n t goals. P h ilo so p h y c a n see in a r t th e key th a t o p e n s th e d o o r o f reality, a m ean s o f h e lp in g it to grow , a p h e n o m e n o n th a t addresses a n d reflexively in spires it, o r as a c o m p lex reality w hose d im e n sio n s it wishes to discover. - S o m e th in g sim ilarly g ra d u a l is seen in p h ilo so p h y by a rt o r the artist as h e re p le n ish e s his » ph ilo sophical« tanks fo r new expressive feats.
IV. Code
T h e re la tio n betw een art, aesthetics a n d p h iloso ph y p re s e n te d in this c o n trib u tio n is, as was ex p ected , m erely a ro u g h (m acro) »m apping« o f the interactive space. I d o feel, however, th a t this co n trib u tio n has th e p o te n tia l to o p e n a d e b a te o n th e practical n e e d for m o re system atic re flectio n o n the re la tio n s betw een art, aesthetics a n d philosophy, a n d offers a go o d startin g p o in t. T his startin g p o in t co u ld be the following: th in k in g a b o u t a rt is possi
ble only with its assistance. W ith o u t its h elp we are u n a b le to e n te r in to it. If, in th e course o f creatio n , an artist thinks a b o u t his art, th e n th eo re tic ia n s sh o u ld also m ake an effo rt to u n d e rs ta n d his artistic »language«. T his is th e only way they u n d e rs ta n d a n d realize th a t a rt - in th e sam e way as p h ilo so p h y
— is con tin u o u sly q u estio n in g itself a b o u t itself, th a t it is q u estio n ab le to its ow n self, a n d thus far from b ein g so m eth in g th a t is self-u nd erstan dable.
