Aesthetics a Critical Theory of art-Henry G. Hartman

8/9/2019 Aesthetics a Critical Theory of art-Henry G. Hartman

1/260

ICO

.CD

CO


2/260

C..S

UNIVERSI

DEPARTMEN

OF

TORONTO

PSYCHOLOGY

C


3/260

/

:

/

2

1820

/71-3

,

l

)lo


4/260


5/260


6/260


7/260

Aesthetics:

A

Critical

Theory

of

Art


8/260


9/260

AESTHETICS:

A Critical

Theory

of

Art

By

HENRY G.

HARTMAN

Associate

Professor

in

Philosophy

University

of

Cincinnati

R.

G. ADAMS &

CO.

COLUMBUS,

OHIO

1919


10/260

Copyright

1919

by

H.

G,

HARTMAN


11/260


12/260

Chapter

VII

POETRY

179

Problem

stated.

Typical

theories. Recon

struction based

upon

the formula:

poetry

is

verbal

meaning

arranged

and

affected

rhythmically

and

conventionally.

An

in

quiry

into the

substantive

nature of

words,

meanings,

and

things

in

their bear

ing upon

each

other

and

upon

the

other

principles

of

poetry.

Principles

of

liter

ary

criticism.

Chapter

VIII

Music

219

General

characteristics

and

elements.

Typical

theories

examined.

A

reconstruc

tion based

upon

the

conclusion

that

music

is

neither

purely

acoustic

nor

purely

psy

chological

but

rather

a

matter of vital

elements

in

vital

relations,

that

is,

a fusion

of

the two.


13/260

PREFACE

To the

discriminating

individual,

what

constitute

the

elements

of

interest

in

painting,

music,

or

poetry?

This

question

I

shall endeavor

to answer

in the

follow

ing

book,

although

I

aim

less

specifically

to

increase

art-appreciation

than

to

correct

the methods

so

long

in

vogue

for

determining

the

substance,

origin,

and

value of art.

I insist

upon

a

description

of the con

crete

element

of the

different

arts

in

order

to

nullify

the

usual

conception

of

art

as

something unitary

or

generic;

for

no idea has

been

more

inhibitory

in

the

development

of

aesthetics as

a

full-blown

science.

Furthermore,

in the

usual

conception

of

art,

the

psychological

or

subjective

factors

have

been

forced

to

the

front

with

such

one-sided

prominence

that

the

material

aspect

of the

arts

with

all

their rich

divergency

has

been reduced

to

the

background, or,

even

more

commonly,

wholly

eclipsed.

The

outcome

of

this

line

of

thought

is false not

only

to

art

but to

psychology.

By enforcing

the

recognition

of certain

firmly

estab

lished

psychological

and artistic

principles,

I

hope

thus

further

to amend

existing

art-theories.

It

matters

not,

in

a

survey

of the

existing

art-

theories,

whether we

examine

those

originating

with

the

philosopher

and

the

psychologist

or

those

origi

nating

with

the critics

of

music,

painting,

and

poetry

(the

proposed

limit

of

my attention),

the

conviction

deepens

that

art-theory

demands a

radically

new

construction,

if

for no other

purpose

than

to

neutralize

the

stultifying

effect

of

the

existing

theories.

Anyone


14/260

who

has

attempted

to

apply

the

science

of

aesthetics

to

art-appreciation,

knows

whereof

I

speak.

If

the

criticisms

I

offer

are

valid

and

the

construc

tions

sound,

the book

should

rend

the veil

long-exist

ing

between

art-appreciation

and

its

appropriate

science;

it

should serve

to

regulate

research and

to

clarify

criticism;

and

I

hope

that

it

will

also

serve

to increase

and

vitalize

the

study

of aesthetics

in

our

universities

and

colleges

in

their

new

consecration

to

culture

as

opposed

to

"Kultur."

I

have

attempted

to

bring

the

varied

aspects

of art

under one inclusive

problem;

namely,

the formula

tion of

the

substance

of each

of the arts

under

four

general principles

material,

conventional,

technical,

and

psychological

in their

strict

interdependence.


15/260

CHAPTER

I

Beauty

and

Art

Beauty

may

baffle scientific

cognition,

but

its

reality

remains

undisputed.

It

appears

in

many

avowed

and

unavowed

forms

both to

civilized

and

primitive

man;

and

even animals show themselves

responsive

to its

presence.

Its

refining

influence

is,

also, gener

ally

accepted.

Responsiveness

to

beauty

is

consid

ered

not

only

a

mark

of

culture,

but,

in the

opinion

of

Emerson

and

of

the

Greeks,

"beauty

is

the

mark

God

sets

upon

virtue."

Neither

the

ubiquity

of

beauty,

then,

nor its

power

and

charm,

generally

awake

dispute.

It is

only

when

the

theorist

inquires

of

what

beauty

consists

that

we

are forced

to

pause.

No

phenomenon

seems

at

once

more

compelling

and elusive.

Art,

too,

exacts

a

wide

acknowledgement

of

its

existence and

value.

"Take

up any newspaper

of

our

times

that

you please,

and

you

will

find

in

every

one

a

department

of the

drama,

painting,

and

music.

*

*

*

In

every

large

city,

huge buildings

are

con

structed

for

museums, academies,

conservatories,

dramatic

schools

for

representations,

and

concerts.

Hundreds

of

thousands

of

workmen

carpenters,

stonemasons,

painters,

cabinetmakers,

paper

hangers,

tailors, jewelers,

bronze-workers,

compositors

spend

their

whole

lives

in

arduous

toil

in order to

satisfy

the

demand of

art;

so

that

there

is

hardly any

other

ll


16/260

12

AESTHETICS

human

activity,

except

war,

which

consumes

so

much

force as

this."

l

We find similar evidence of the

significance

of

art

if

we

turn

to

the

records

of

primitive peoples.

Ernst

Grosse,

in

his

Beginnings

of

Art,

writes

that "there

is no

people

without art. The rudest and most miser

able

tribes

devote

a

large

part

of their

time

and

strength

to

art

art,

which

is

looked

down

upon

and

treated

by

civilized

nations,

from

the

height

of their

practical

and scientific

achievements,

more and more as idle

play.

And

yet

*

* *

if

art were

indeed

only

idle

play,

then natural

selection

should

have

long ago

rejected

the

peoples

which

wasted

their

force

in so

purposeless

a

way,

in

favor

of

other

peoples

of

practical

talents."

Art,

like

beauty,

has a

vitality

which we

cannot

deny.

To

the

theorist,

however,

beauty

and

art

present

genuine

difficulties.

Beauty

is

by

far the

more

elusive

of

the

two,

yet,

notwithstanding,

a

strong

tendency

exists

among

theorists

to describe

art

in

terms

of

beauty.

It is

true that this

practice

encounters

a

certain

opposition

in the

contrast,

usually

enforced,

between

the

beauty

of

art

and

the

beauty

of

nature;

but,

in

spite

of this

distinction,

the recurrent assertion

appears,

that

art

is

beauty

even

if

all

beauty

is

not

art.

In

such

a

presentation,

beauty

appears

as

the

wider and more

inclusive

term. But since

art

is

con

cerned

in

the

creation

of the

comic,

the

grotesque,

the

sublime,

and the

tragic,

as

well

as

in the

creation

of the

beautiful,

it

would seem that

either

the term

1

Tolstoi,

What

is

Art?


17/260

BEAUTY

AND

ART

13

"beauty"

is

not an

exhaustive

description

of

art,

or that

as

applied

to

art,

it

has

a

peculiar

meaning,

by

vir

tue

of which

beauty

is

made to embrace

the ideas

of

the

comic,

the

grotesque,

the

sublime,

and

the

tragic,

as

well as

the idea of

beauty

in

its

more circumscribed

meaning.

Thus the

usual

habit

of

identifying

art

with

beauty

creates

rather

than solves

a

problem.

But since

the

definition

of

beauty

should

follow

rather

than

precede

the

analysis

of

art,

and

since

my

main

concern

in

this

book

is

with

art,

I

shall not enter

upon

a

discussion

of

beauty beyond

its relation

to

art.

II

Beauty

has

been

made

the

subject

of

frequent

in

quiry;

but theorists

are

anything

but

agreed

as

to

the

nature

of

beauty.

Thinkers of

the

metaphysical

type

declare that

beauty

is

an

abstract,

substantive

entity

which transcends the

many

particular

instances of

its

manifestation;

that

things

are

not beautiful

in

and

by

themselves,

but that

they

become beautiful

to

the

extent

in

which

they

share or

participate

in

abstract,

transcendent

beauty;

and

that

the what of

beauty

is

either

Mind,

Truth, Perfection,

or

Meaning

an in

effable

something

usually

spelled

with

a

capital.

I

mention

this

form of

the

beauty-theory

merely

to

pass

it

by,

for

a

conception

of

beauty

that is

non-dependent

for

its

definition

upon

the concrete

facts

of

the

different

arts contains

little

of

practical

moment for

an

aesthetic

scientist.

However,

among

the

transcendent

theorists,

Plato

is the

classic

example,

and

the

following

extract

presents

a

clear

statement of his

position.

"He

who


18/260


19/260

BEAUTY

AND ART

15

the

object

* *

*

but to

the

subject,

and its

feeling

of

pleasure

and

pain." (Italics

are

mine.)

2

Everyone

will

admit that a

psychophysical

individual

is an

important

factor

in

the

determination

of

beauty.

Beauty

cannot

be

defined,

as

Plato

essays,

in

its

total

abstraction

from

an

individual.

But neither can

it

be

defined,

as

these

theorists in

harmony

with

Plato

suggest,

in

its

total

abstraction

from

objects.

I

deny,

therefore,

that

beauty

is

exclusively

or

even

primarily

derived

"from the

expression

of

the

mind,"

or

"from

the

feeling

of

pleasure

and

pain."

We cannot

by

an

exclusive

reference

to

an

individual

account

for

beauty

in

its

divergent

forms.

Deny

that

beauty

is

a

bare

generic

abstraction,

and we are forced

to

conclude

that

beauty

in

its

many

manifestations

is

the concrete

expression

of

many

different

objects.

In

each

of

these

forms,

beauty

is

an

individualized

something.

But

it

can

be

neither

individualized

nor

differentiated

in

its

many

forms without a more or less exclusive

refer

ence

to

the material in

which it has its

expression;

and,

when

not

thus

individualized

and

differentiated,

it

remains a

bare,

empty

abstraction.

Beauty

in

paint

ing

is

not

one

and

the same

thing

with

beauty

in

music

or

poetry.

Beauty

in

painting

is as

distinctive as

the

phenomenon

of

painting

itself,

and

the

beauty

of

music

is

as

different

from it

as music

is from

painting.

Regard

beauty

as

removed from

its concrete material

and

we

may

ask:

What

is

that

beauty

in

painting

divorced from

color which

you

say

is

one

and the same

thing

with

beauty

in

music

divorced

from tone?

Affirm

a

beauty

in

music and

painting

that

is

independ-

2

Kant s

Kritik of

Judgment,

trans,

by

J.

H.

Bernard,

p.

47.


20/260

16

AESTHETICS

ent

of

the

materials

respectively

presented

in musi

Documents

Aesthetics a Critical Theory of art-Henry G. Hartman