Παντελής Τσάβαλος

(σκέψεις για τη φύση και τη λειτουργία της αισθητικής εμπειρίας)

Is aesthetic experience a result of the aesthetic attitude of the observer or of the qualities of the work of art?

Much has been said and written on the appropriate way of experiencing a work of art, a way traditionally considered as distinguishable from that of other kinds of experiences, described as an aesthetic experience. Different emphasis has at times been placed on whether the aesthetic experience can result from a range of qualities of the object experienced (Bell’s significant form, Sibley’s grace, unity, gaudiness etc.), or from a certain attitude on the part of the observer or beholder, described as aesthetic attitude¹.

The idea of an aesthetic attitude, requiring both an involvement and a detachment from the perceived object can be traced back to Aristotle’s στάσις, or Aquinas’s aesthetic contemplation, but it was Kant who carefully and systematically analysed the concept of disinterestedness as central in aesthetic appreciation. Kant’s idea of disinterestedness was thought of as a kind of impartiality, as the absence of the kind of interest that relates to one’s own advantage or disadvantage. In Schopenhauer’s notion of the loss of will, one loses awareness of the self and becomes purely contemplative. Despite their fundamental differences in the nature of aesthetic experience², Kant’s disinterestedness and Schopenhauer’s will-lessness do share a common ground as far as the aesthetic experience is concerned..

Bullough’s view of  ‘psychical distance’ is grounded in a similar suggestion that aesthetic attitude is a necessary condition of aesthetic experience. It does not follow, however, Kant’s analytical description of the free play of imagination and understanding. Nor does it follow Schopenhauer’s metaphysical interpretation of the intellect freeing itself from the demands of the will. It is rather founded on a psychological basis and presented to us with suggestive examples that try to encompass the variety of aesthetic experience and to define it in terms of the psychical distance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Do we need to know, when interpreting a work of art, what the creator of the work intended?

Last week I gave a lecture on Art History to primary school teachers. During the discussion that followed a lady said: “What you’ve been telling us is fascinating, but I was wondering, do I have to know all this in order to enjoy a work of art? And what if I don’t have someone around to explain, will I still be able to understand what it means and enjoy it?” We discussed it further on and as I was leaving, there came another lady who asked me privately and somehow secretly: “I am going to see the Miro exhibition on the island of Andros this weekend. What do I have to read before going?”

I was reading the Intentional Fallacy at the time and I kept thinking that I may be doing something wrong, by referring so extensively to external evidence when interpreting a work of art. I couldn’t help referring to Gauguin’s life and travels so as to explain that it was a kind of a quest for primitive values that led him to his intention to abandon three-dimensional representation and not lack of competence.

My discipline, of course, is Art History not Philosophy and a certain number of external references are legitimate and unavoidable since I use a combination of two kinds of enquiry, the critical and the biographical. But even so, in the light of our discussion, there were many questions raised: Do we need to know about the artist and his life in order to appreciate a work of art? Does this kind of knowledge enhance or impoverish our aesthetic experience. Is what I understand that a work means, the same as what the author intended it to mean? Does it make any difference if it is not? And so on and so forth.

Read the rest of this entry »

Do we need to know, when interpreting a work of art, what the creator of the work intended? 

Last week I gave a lecture on Art History to primary school teachers. During the discussion that followed a lady said: “What you’ve been telling us is fascinating, but I was wondering, do I have to know all this in order to enjoy a work of art? And what if I don’t have someone around to explain, will I still be able to understand what it means and enjoy it?” We discussed it further on and as I was leaving, there came another lady who asked me privately and somehow secretly: “I am going to see the Miro exhibition on the island of Andros this weekend. What do I have to read before going?”

I was reading the Intentional Fallacy at the time and I kept thinking that I may be doing something wrong, by referring so extensively to external evidence when interpreting a work of art. I couldn’t help referring to Gauguin’s life and travels so as to explain that it was a kind of a quest for primitive values that led him to his intention to abandon three-dimensional representation and not lack of competence. Read the rest of this entry »