Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery
Style:
Language:


Calendar Quick Links open HelpRegister
Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Comment on Schopenhauer’s ‘On the Inner Nature of Art’ » Comment on Schopenhauer’s ‘On the Inner Nature of Art’

Comment on Schopenhauer’s ‘On the Inner Nature of Art’
Discussion of idealism in art through my reading of Schopenhauer's Essay.

printPrint


Comment on Schopenhauer’s ‘On the Inner Nature of Art’
Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143
Posted 02/29/08 - 08:19 AM:
Subject: Comment on Schopenhauer’s ‘On the Inner Nature of Art’ 		quote post
#1
Comment on Schopenhauer’s ‘On the Inner Nature of Art’

Schopenhauer maintains that the inspiration in great art is momentary and necessarily a mere fragment of concept alluding to universal truth, and as such is only a representation, a perception if you will of that truth, not its exposition in full. Schopenhauer holds the value of an objective truth exalted above a subjective interpretation but then invites us to assume that subjective consideration is that which makes art great, or rather the fact that great art leaves room for a compulsory, according to Schopenhauer, subjective consideration. Indeed Schopenhauer opens with the statement that all art addresses the question of ‘what is life?’ He claims that all successful art answers this question on a diagrammatic level by suggesting that art communicates only in the ‘naive and childlike language of perception’. Sidestepping music slightly, ascribing to it an untranslatable language of absolute directness, he continues to assert that all art presents a fleeting glimpse of the answer to the question ‘what is life?’ and not a conceptualized holistic answer. This answer is, Schopenhauer suggests supplied, or at least the question is addressed more completely by philosophy. Maintaining that philosophy can reflect on the abstract and give account of the internal subjective process and thus describe a conceptual idealization of the artists work, he draws a link between philosophy and the fine arts. The difference between the artistic objective representation of reality and the philosophical subjective interpretation of that representation joins art and philosophy.

Does art in fact answer the question of existence? Is art not more the inquisitor than the subject of inquisition? When an artist expresses that flash of inspiration, his momentary glimpse of the Truth, is he not consciously begging the viewer to answer exactly this question rather than supplying a ready-made snapshot of the answer? I suggest that music has been assigned such an exalted position by Schopenhauer simply because it asks rather than answers. Listeners are not just invited but forced (if they are to derive anything of value from music) to respond to the demands made by the music. There is no diagrammatic level in artful music. The English fields and dales conjured in the imagination while listening to Elgar, are just such a response. Elgar does not explicitly depict these nor does a conscious reflection of the musical material presented result in these images. There must be, therefore, a subconscious reflex response drawn from deep memories, connotations to use Benjamin’s terminology, which answers the ‘question’ put by the music. For a visual work of art the same holds true. A great painting is not waiting for a concept to embrace it; rather it is asking the viewer to go outside whatever concept to which it may superficially be connected and reconsider the reality described therein as an exception and not as a rule as Schopenhauer suggests.
He is trying to formulate this in the following passage:

'Accordingly, all works of art try to show us life as it is in reality, but the mist of objectivity and subjective preconceptions prevent us from understanding this. Art removes this mist.'

What Schopenhauer misses here is that life is all about exceptions. The mist will be not only be cleared by art but it will be replaced by a subjective interpretation of the artist and thus a call to identify with the exception, to exalt the subject and viewer to a higher ‘personal’ level of experience involving not the sublimation of ego but rather its conscription. Thus Schopenhauer involves the viewer in art on a level preordained by his own collective experience of the subject matter to which the work pertains when he says:

'Therefore everyone who reads the poem or contemplates a work of art must contribute from his own resources toward bringing the wisdom [of the thing represented] to light. Consequently, he grasps only so much of the work as his capacity and culture allow…'

At this point Schopenhauer attempts to assert that philosophy is explicit in its expression of this ‘gap’ in art, the void which mere representation i.e. art leaves for subjective reflection in the viewer. This gap, since it is essentially subjective in nature cannot be explicitly expressed at all since any attempt to do so would be to deny art the very difference that makes it art. If philosophizing over art is to deprive it of the personal individual interpretation unique to all of us then philosophy reduces art according to Schopenhauer. I suggest that rather philosophy is part and parcel of the birth of art and the transformation from objective truth into subjective interpretation is the actual process of creation, perception and reflection. Philosophy is the grape and art is the wine to use Schopenhauer’s terms.

Rightly so Schopenhauer maintains that the real birth of art is in the imagination of the viewer as the fruit of the seed, which is the work of art itself. However following from this he draws a rather dubious conclusion that great art is that, which is executed by the artist ‘at one stroke at the moment of conception’. If we are to believe this then we must demote a huge body of works over which artist labored for longer that the ‘moment of conception’ such as most sculpture, buildings like the Parthenon and paintings which were planned such as The Funeral of Comte Ogath by El Greco. It seems that Schopenhauer has confused the genius of spontaneous improvisation with the genius of deliberation over time. In music improvisation is considered a sign of supreme excellence as player and composer coexisting in one person. However I would point to the notebooks of Beethoven as an indication of how deliberation as a creative process can match and even surpass that spark of inspiration to which Schopenhauer ascribes such a unique and unassailable position.
After a typical attack on Baroque style Schopenhauer returns to the point that concept is finite in form and expressible by verbal communication and is paradoxically opposed to idea which is nebulous and inexhaustible but somehow only a component of concept.

'The communication of [idea] can therefore take place only on the path of perception, which is that of art. Therefore, whoever is imbued with the apprehension of an idea is justified when he chooses art as the medium of his communication. The mere concept, on the other hand, is something completely determinable, hence something to be exhausted, something distinctly thought, which can be, according to its whole content, communicated coldly and dispassionately by words.'

Can this separation be applied to works of art, which encompass the exposition of philosophical concepts? Here is where cinema has thwarted Schopenhauer in Films like ‘Deconstructing Harry’ (the application of deconstruction to psychoanalysis) and Recently ‘Noise’ (Hegelian transcendence as a character transformation). These films are studies ‘in art’ of the concepts they investigate and not just the idea of ‘character transformation’ or ‘rehabilitation’. Saying that, it is impossible to ignore the fact that such cinematic masterpieces of biographical nature as ‘Citizen Caine’, Lawrence of Arabia’ or ‘Raging Bull’ are high art just from a photographic standpoint and that they are studies of concept (albeit a personal one) and not idea. So where do these instances draw their immortality and what makes works of art that deal with concept rather that idea imperishable? My impression is that it is not the inspirational moment of conception as an epiphany which demotes the artist to some kind of conduit that characterizes great art but more that the execution or realization of such an epiphany is carried out in such a way that the viewer/listener is presented with not just a diagram of the idea but a framework of the concept into which certain ideas can be installed and thus illuminate the concept.

Schopenhauer concludes his essay quoting Horace ‘Quandoque dormitat bonus Homerus’, which I translate as “Homer must have had a good night’s sleep to dream up this stuff!” rather than the more usual “Even Homer must sleep sometimes.” My point being that Homer worked hard and long perfecting each rhapsody in the Iliad and not: Homer had to take a break from the exhausting task of improvising huge epic narratives.

Fergus Currie
Athens 2008



Edited by Fergus Currie on 03/02/08 - 04:14 AM

_____________________
...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise.
...so never send Achilles to get fags!
Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143
Posted 03/02/08 - 04:18 AM:
quote post
#2
OK. the big questions are:
1. Is spontaneity of inspiration essential for great art?
and
2. Does the contribution of the viewer or listener add to this greatness, and if so, in what way?

_____________________
...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise.
...so never send Achilles to get fags!
Jesroy
Cluth Magistrate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 22, 2005
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 132
Posted 03/02/08 - 07:16 PM:
quote post
#3
I'm sorry, I do not well understand your first post. From the sense I have forced myself to make of it, it seems you have misunderstood Schopenhauer. I recommend you restate just one or two of the ideas in your post, articulating them very well, until your thoughts are appallingly clear.

In the mean time, I will answer 1. No. Perhaps (though perhaps not) spontaneity is necessary for inspiration either in an rational sense (rational as defined by Schopenhauer) or in a causal sense (i.e., without acting spontaneously, one could not be inspired; spontaneous acting is one of the causes of inspiration); but I do not think there is any link between art's quality and the spontaneity with which it was thought up. Could you maybe supply some context in order to explain what you mean by spontaneity?

And I will answer 2. No, the greatness lies neither in the artist nor the viewer, but in the Idea. The part of the artist is to first realize the idea, and then clearly present it. The viewer needs only to realize the Idea, and he does so from the form in which it has been clearly presented by the artist. I can expound more, but first please say if you have read the WaWaR, particularly Book 3, because I am merely repeating the ideas put forth in that book.


Edited by Jesroy on 03/02/08 - 07:21 PM

_____________________
"There's no Tuesday like tomorrow" - Picador Vaseli
"All roads lead to Amber" - Random
Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143
Posted 03/03/08 - 01:57 AM:
quote post
#4
@ Jesroy
Thanks for the reply. I know this is a bit weighty. You must read the Schopenhauer essay 'On the Inner Nature of Art' ('the World as Will and Representation' III) to understand this post. My reading is not in agreement with Schopenhauer; please don't think I misunderstand him - I disagree with him! It is not enough just to repeat his position - (read his essay 'On Thinking For Oneself' in 'Suffering'.) one must consider and intervene.

It would seem that you disagree too since you answered Q.1 as 'no'.
Q.2 goes more to the growth of a work of art as accumulating meaning through repeated subjective interpretation as Schopenhauer indicates - and what constitutes the process here.

I think it is obvious that I have read this essay; it's just that I find it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny except possibly in a historical context.

My original essay had italics and bold text which clarified things a bit, but I can't seem to get the text editor here to work. Can some one help me?
FC



_____________________
...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise.
...so never send Achilles to get fags!
Jesroy
Cluth Magistrate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 22, 2005
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 132
Posted 03/03/08 - 11:13 AM:
quote post
#5
I don't see how answering "no" to 2 disagrees with Schopenhauer. I could construe various ways that might link question 2 with Schopenhauer's position, but I cannot make any definite connection. Why don't you explicitly state this connection, or at least expound upon and make clearer what you mean by spontaneity?



_____________________
"There's no Tuesday like tomorrow" - Picador Vaseli
"All roads lead to Amber" - Random
Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143
Posted 03/04/08 - 02:58 AM:
quote post
#6
Ih the first part of his essay Schopenhauer places philosophy above art in its ability to completely examine the abstract (this is what he means when he refers to concept) maintaining that art only exposes a fleeting manifestation of this concept as an idea. However he then moves on to say that great art is the representation of an 'idea' which goads the viewer into examining the concept subjectively. This sounds fine until you realize that Schopenhauer means that the viewer is directed to the concept or abstract principle behind the idea in a conservative and linear manner. This is where I disagree. Art does not want the viewer to conform to the abstract principle, rather art guides the viewer away from the concept and towards exceptions to it.
My point: Art does not answer, it asks!
Schopenhauer was living at a time when art was trying to unravel the human emotional element in the Romantic revolution but before Freudean psychoanalysis had been formulated. You can see this in his attitude towards women. It is so outdated it's scary! If he was living in a post Freud period, his views on women might be reversed completely.
Back to spontaneity. Schopenhauer also claims that a sign of great art is its immediacy of execution. He claims that sketches by artists such as Raphael have more importance as art that the finished works for which they were made. However much some instances maybe coincidentally so, There is a huge body of work which defies this claim and, I suggest, overturns it. I personally point to Mozart as the spontaneously inspired composer creating pretty eloquent and, yes, impressive masterpieces. But I point not to Sallieri as his opposite but to Beethoven whose notebooks bear witness to an enduring struggle with inspiration and, of course, human emotions (I consider beethoven the first serious Romantic composer as well as the last serious Classicist). Beethoven's works plumb the depths of the human psyche and outstrip Mozart's work as a prism through which man can find not just concept but exception and revolt to it.
FC

_____________________
...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise.
...so never send Achilles to get fags!
Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143
Posted 03/05/08 - 01:32 AM:
quote post
#7
Bottom line: Schopenhauer's view of art is outdated even in his own historical context. He adheres to the naturalistic representational idea of art of the classical period (almost Platonic) and cannot see further into the artist's mind nor understand any social or emotional implication wearing those blinkers. He therefor adopts the principle that viewer's interpretation is divorced of any historical, social or personal aesthetic of the artist. Romanticism makes this break very clearly and Schopenhauer fails to cede this point.
This is why we cannot refer to Schopenhauer when discussing implications of media and materials used by contemporary artists like Kule Ingoze. Although historically we should be able to, unfortunately he shoots himself in the foot with his conservatism.
FC

_____________________
...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise.
...so never send Achilles to get fags!
Download thread as


You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

Contact the Administration

23 total queries
This page was created in 3.31 seconds
Memory used: 6295624 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 47 days, 13:24, load average: 0.81, 1.23, 1.46