Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HANDSON]

I understand that it is definitively proved that young babies are genetically primed to be emotionally attached to the human face. I don't remembner whether the 'human face' is represented to the baby as two eyes in an oval frame. However some very early human representations of faces is just so formalised and stylised.

In a similarly naturalistic vein the human emotion of disgust has been scientifically examined and this emotion arises when unhealthy material such as dead bodies is smelled or sighted.Notably carrion eaters that ingest dead bodies are not likely to be disgusted or harmed by ingesting them.

Nurture is all-important when appreciating the truth or beauty of sophisticated art forms. This is because an individual who has been nurtured among the learning, feelings, ideas and behaviours of some sophisticated culture understands the common meanings of the art forms of that culture. In a society where art forms are very sophisticated the individual in order to appreciate the art forms has to undergo some sort of formal schooling in them.

Despite all this nurture, I do believe that nature is at the bottom of art appreciation.

Are we ready to take the great leap?

Insofar as there is common ground all mankind shares (being human on earth), can we then assume a Common Aesthetic? (qualification: allowing for individual experiential differences).

[Belinda]

Handson wrote:

Insofar as there is common ground all mankind shares (being human on earth), can we then assume a Common Aesthetic? (qualification: allowing for individual experiential differences).

For naturalists, yes. This is because anthropological researches can uncover cross cultural elements if such exist. Possible areas to start with might be interactions between babies and mothers and their cross cultural reflection in natural and artifical sounds, body positions and movements with consequent cultural elevation to art status.

We have intertribal aggression which gives rise to the heroic movements in art which are reflected in popular cultural art forms.It may be possible to identify forms in poetry, music and visual arts which express heroic meanings which are common to all men of all tribes who are the least bit interested in intertribal aggression.

Sexual attraction is common to all healthy and fertile people of all cultures so here is another area in which art froms can be expected to reveal commonalities of form.

It is less probable that pity and compassion are common to all men of all tribes. It would be nice if so, and if so I would assume that art forms that reflect pity and compassion would be present in all cultures.My guess would be that such art forms would be the same as the mother and baby interaction based art forms.

One thing that we may safely assume is common to all men of all tribes is the animal need, conscious or unconscious, for finding patterns. Therefore I think we can expect to find in any art form with aesthetic potential a feeling of crisis with possibilities of resolution. This would show, for instance, as the movement of the human eyes as they scan a visual art form together with exploration of the pleasure centre in the subjects' brains, and possibly also the action of mirror neurons.

You can see that my ideas are rooted in the human, and not in any Platonic daftness regarding eternal forms of beauty or truth.

[Matt]

I never saw this as problematic as most seem to do. In all areas of life you are required to abstract to some extent from your own feelings and personal, "subjective", or "psychological" dispositions. Philosophy is a prime example of this, and it almost defines it to an extent. Art is aesthetic, but the aesthetic is also linked to the emotional, and if there is a predominant emotional element, you can try to make a case for its more general validity. All you have to do is recognize its scope of generality, part of which has to be the skill and quality of the mind which brought the work about, and not judge superficially with arguments of your personal interestedness, i.e. don't completely denigrate a great poet because you have some slight disagreement about politics, for example. The latter is valid for preferences and different styles, but you have to see that it's not the same as talking about a definition of art. Interestingly, there is a kind of purity required in aesteticism that potentially gives quite simple aspects and principles a great universality, if it's not at the cost of a discerning mind. This universality is also one reason why there is a calming aspect to art, because it is not immediately linked to your interests and desires or if you like to see it that way, makes your own being become part of something greater, although you can't fool yourself that it's about the egotistical you, but about that "something greater", which ideally ought to get yourself into perspective.

Of course, you might endlessly differentiate, like "is my favourite rock band art" and "what styles are valid" and "what if this is exactly what I need instead of this" and "what is aesthetic anyway", but I don't think this completely erases the question of some general principles (as the consensus of the internet seems to do), as it also doesn't in any other inquiry...

But these are just some initial remarks, anway.

[Simply Wee]

I have no interest in sport, yet I marvel at those whose ability receive the recognition which derives from their will to be the best. Hence its beauty outside my field of comfort, and my admiration for all those within it. Maybe this is Kant's ultimate form of judgement.