the value of art

5
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280673948 The Value of Art DATASET · AUGUST 2015 READS 13 1 AUTHOR: Arash Rahmani Shahid Beheshti University 5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Arash Rahmani Retrieved on: 23 September 2015

Upload: arsh-rah

Post on 09-Dec-2015

11 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

An analysis of how art has been valued throughout history.

TRANSCRIPT

Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280673948

TheValueofArt

DATASET·AUGUST2015

READS

13

1AUTHOR:

ArashRahmani

ShahidBeheshtiUniversity

5PUBLICATIONS0CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:ArashRahmani

Retrievedon:23September2015

Threshold

157

The Value of Art

Arash Rahmani English Literature, PhD Student, Shahid Beheshti University

“…that the beautiful is as useful as the useful, more so perhaps...”

- Victor Hugo

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty-- that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

- Keats, “Ode on the Grecian Urn”

“Nature has formed creatures only. Art has made men.”

- Schiller

Discussions regarding the value of art have been divided into two different groups. One group, the so-called proponents of the extrinsic quality of art, ascribe the value of art to something outside the work. A good example might be didactic art, or art as a means to the fulfillment of some moral good. This group of critics focus on the influence of the work of art on an individual when, for instance, it evokes emotions in the reader. On the other hand, the second group of critics, the so-called practitioners of the intrinsic evaluation of art, value art in itself rather than considering it as something instrumental. The intrinsic approach is mostly associated with such writers as Walter Pater and Oscar Wilde as well as the French Symbolists, who propagated the following slogan: “art for art’s sake.” The aforementioned individuals and groups believe that art should be studied per se, i.e. as an end in itself; moreover, they posit that the only justification that art needs is its own existence. They are in favor of putting aside all interests and fallacies in favor of an interest in the work itself.

2, Number 8Volume

158

Nevertheless, these are not the only two groups. Between the two extremes of extrinsic and intrinsic evaluations lie other groups of thinkers who wish to take the middle way. They believe that the audiences or critics should appreciate works of art in themselves, but also that from this appreciation we might get something with independent value. For instance, we read a literary work and enjoy it on its own; however, the enjoyment also has an effect on our life. It enriches and broadens our perspective on life.

In addition, it should be noted that such discussions of art should also take into consideration the notion of taste because perceiving a work of art, in general, and, for instance, reading a literary work, in particular, is primarily a subjective process. It is actually our taste, alongside our faculty of judgment that help us regard some works of art as worthy of our attention and discard the rest as unworthy. These are the faculties of which we partake in order to ascribe numerous adjectives to different works of art.

Before delving into the main concern of the present paper, one intriguing point should be mentioned, and it is the fact that critical discussions of a work of art can be categorized into the following groups: “Interpretive” and “Evaluative.” Each group has its own “aesthetic terms” such as:

• Affective Terms: moving, frightening, disturbing… • Terms denoting emotional qualities: Sad, Lively, Mournful… • Terms regarding the expressive or representational content: Comic,

Tragic, Ironic…

Therefore, while discussing a work critically, most critics resort to their respective resources of aesthetic terms in order to explain the qualities they find in a given work of art.

Any discussion regarding the value of art should pay attention to the two qualities that almost all works of art possess, i.e. what the work of art expresses, and how the audience responds to it. Therefore, such discussions tend to be twofold. What the work of art expresses, a problematic issue mostly because it is very difficult, if not downright impossible, to determine what the artist had in mind during the process of the work’s creation, is analyzed in the works of such writers as Croce. Croce, alongside other writers such as Tolstoy and Collingwood, who are associated with the Expressivism movement, believes that art is not only about expressing the right emotion, but also about finding the right “outlet” through which this emotion can be best expressed. In his work, The Aesthetic as the Science of Expression and of the Linguistic in General, Croce argues that “order-less stimuli is frustrating and painful,” (Croce & Ainslie, 1922, p. 92) therefore, a form should be imposed on it so that the audience can understand it. His best example is when we feel frustrated because we cannot find the proper words to express a feeling or an emotion; in the same manner,

Threshold

159

artists also feel frustrated when they cannot find “the final stroke” that brings about the unity of their work. Evaluating a work of art cannot be done without taking into account these issues and points. However, it should be noted that causing an emotion should not be confused with expressing an emotion. A painting, a piece of music, or a literary work might be about a happy family, but because of the subjective associations evoked in one particular audience, it might cause that person feelings of sadness, loneliness, and depression. Discussions on the value of a work of art should consider this side of the coin, as well as the responses elicited in the audience when the work of art enters the public sphere because evaluating a work based solely on the artist’s self-expression is a fatal mistake, and the responses of the audience should also be taken into account; this is because the enjoyment we derive from works of art and their enlightening qualities are significant criteria based on which one might label a work good or bad. Therefore, our evaluation of art is an effort to bring the two sides of this coin together.

As Leo Tolstoy has maintained in What is Art?, evaluation should not be the analysis of what is expressed and what is evoked, but rather a combination of the two. He says,

Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands onto others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by those feelings and also experience them… The value of art doesn’t lie in the pleasure of individuals, taken as individuals. We are social creatures, and art connects us to each other. (Tolstoy & Maude, 1899, p. 43)

The bond that is created between the audience and the artist is also one of the criteria in evaluating the success and popularity of a work of art.

Having talked about the ways by which works of art are evaluated, it is time we turned to enumerating different kinds of value that they hold. According to Michael Findlay, in his book The Value of Art, all works of art potentially possess one of the following kinds of value: commercial; social; and essential value. For Findlay, the “commercial” and the “social” values of art are related to extrinsic evaluations carried out by critics who are concerned with the external factors whereas the essential value of art, which belongs to intrinsic evaluations of art, is carried out by investigating the artistic object in itself irrespective of any influence it might have had on either the commercial aspect of its distribution process or the social sphere from which it has emerged. (Findlay, 2012, p. 3).

Findlay remarks that the commercial value of works of art focuses on the commercial success that they achieve when they are distributed, regardless of the content. For instance, a film may not be rich in its content, but because it is

2, Number 8Volume

160

alluring to a special kind of audience, or a special group, it turns out to be a big hit in the box office. This, for Findlay, is the least valuable kind of value. To cite an example from contemporary pop art, movies like Avengers lack valuable content, but they become successful in the box office because teenagers or comic book geeks are attracted to them.

Social value analysis considers the milieu in which the work has been produced and distributed, and it evaluates the work based on the social influence in can exert on the society, not to mention its role as the preserver of history. Examples abound. One such example is the fashionable styles, or catch phrases that become popular after a movie, TV show, etc. Friends, which was an American sitcom had tremendous influence on its target audience during its ten-year run. The Rachel hairstyle and the overuse of “so” were two among many of its effects. Another instance could be different paintings that depict a momentous historical event. The level of penetration, as well as the permanence of the influence are crucial criteria based on which critics can determine the social value of a work of art.

Finally, Findlay asserts that the essential value of art, which follows the “art for art’s sake” slogan, is “the most important of the three and also the most difficult to determine” (Findlay, 2012, p. 93). One of the difficulties for this kind of value is the fact that works of art cannot, and must not, be studied in a vacuum. They should be studied in relation to other works of art to which they bear some resemblance.

Bibliography Croce, B. & D. Ainslie. (1922). Aesthetic as science of expression and general linguistic.

London: Macmillan.

Findlay, M. (2012). The value of art. Munchen: Prestel Verlag.

Tolstoy, L. & A. Maude. (1899). What is art? New York: Crowell.