I think all humans are universally sensitive to identify unity from
disunity in
what they sense, but that would not determine their personal
aesthetic taste.
mando
On Nov 3, 2009, at 6:41 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
"The universality of art and artistic behaviors, their spontaneous
appearance
everywhere across the globe and through recorded human history, and
the fact
that in most cases they can be recognized as artistic across
cultures suggest
that they derive from a natural, innate source, a universal human
psychology"
Which was first discussed, of course, by Aristotle in the
"Poetics" and the
natural inclination to enjoy mimesis. Dutton also points out that
Aristotle
had traveled through the eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor, and he
discussed various societies in "Politics":
"Practically everything has been discovered on many occasions - or
rather an
infinity of occasions - in the course of the ages; for necessity
may be
supposed to have taught men the inventions which were absolutely
required and
when these were provided, it was natural that other things which
would adorn
and enrich life would grow up by degrees."
Dutton then adds that "A standard Objection to any mimetic theory
of art
insists that it is not the representations per se that are valued
by human
beings but rather the things represented - the content of the
representation"
And Dutton notes that Aristotle pointed out that people enjoy
seeing the
representation of things, like snakes and spiders, that would repel
them in
real life, although, he neglects to mention that Aristotle also
requires that
good drama represent people of good character, a quality which may
not be
quite so cross cultural.
"Aristotle's Poetics takes as unproblematic that human beings have
a stable
intellectual, imaginative, and emotional nature that is universal
across
cultures"
But don't people in every culture believe that they exemplify what
it is to be
human ? ( so their word for human is commonly the same word that
outsiders
would use to identify them.)
Skipping ahead a thousand years, Dutton then finds the same
assumption in Hume
and Kant.
"The general principles of taste are uniform in human nature" ----
(David
Hume, 1757, "Of the Standard of Taste")
So if Mando fails to recognize the "powerful artistic synthesis" in
"The Bar
at the Folies Bergere", it's because human nature is also prone to
systematic
mistakes and types of corruption -- including: a lack of delicacy,
insufficient experience, or a prejudice against an artist or cultural
background. As well as "the different humours of particular men"
and the "particular manners and opinions of our age and country"
--- two fudge
factors that might undermine his claim if Hume were not so
determined to stick
with it.
Kant then handles this problem by "proposing that judgments about
beauty are
logically separate from mere personal, idiosyncratic preferences
since they
are founded in the *disinterested contemplation* of works of art"
Bringing us into the 20th Century, Dutton lists three more recent
philosophers
who share this assumption: Frank Sibley, Monroe Beardsley, and
Francis
Sparshott (whose "The future of aesthetics" may be worth reading in
the
future)
And he notes that George Dickie, with his ever popular
"Institutional Theory
of Art" takes the opposite stance. (well expressed yesterday by Saul's
assertion that "context determines hierarchy")
But the problem with that stance is consistancy, because it's
difficult to
avoid establishing a hierarchy of contexts.
Even Dickie, in his discussion of the history of theater, wrote
that "That
tradition has run very thin a times, and perhaps even ceased to exist
altogether during some periods, only to be reborn out of its memory
and the
need for art"
"The need for art?" -- yes, that's exactly the assertion that
Dutton has been
making as he claims that there is "some kind of psychological
impulse,
psychic requirement, or instinct" that exists independently of any
institutions that might be established to satisfy it.
Which finally leads to Dutton's compilation of the "innate,
universal features
and capabilities of the human mind" (page 43)
It's too long for me to list here -- but it's mostly sourced from a
list
compiled by the anthropologist, Donald E. Brown that can be found
here:
http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm
.. with additions from Tooby,Cosmides, Steven Pinker, and Joseph
Carroll.
It's a fine list -- but I'm not sure how it can be applied to this
discussion
of art -- since so many of those universal features are social.
So just as there might be an innate disposition to like a blue
landscape --
there might also be an innate desire to like whatever you are
supposed to -
even an all-black painting or a Campbell's soup can.
And it's been my observation that the desire for social status
usually trumps
all the others.
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=7scjyElanTeoTysF-
ugf8gAAJz6c
l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAA
A=
