All the definitions of "beauty" in aesthetics can be summarized into two basic viewpoints. The first holds that "beauty" is an independent thing and one of the manifestations of absolute perfection, and absolute perfection refers to ideas, spirit, will and God. The second view is that "beauty" is a kind of happiness that we get without personal interests. Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and French people who study philosophy, such as Vla and Lavisson, all accept the first definition, and second-rate aesthetic philosophers will not mention it here. Most modern educated people also agree with this objective and mysterious definition of "beauty". This understanding is very popular, especially among the older generation. The second understanding of "beauty" is that "beauty" is a kind of happiness that we get without personal interests. This understanding is mainly popular among British aesthetes, but it is also accepted by half of our society, mainly young people. Therefore, there are only two definitions of "beauty" (there can be no other conclusion). One is objective and mysterious, which combines the concept of "beauty" with the highest perfection, that is, with God. This is a fantasy definition without any basis. On the other hand, another definition is simple and subjective. It thinks that everything that is pleasant is "beautiful". I don't add the words "without purpose and interest" before the word "like", because the word "like" itself means not considering interests.
On the one hand, "beauty" is understood as mysterious, lofty and unfortunately unclear, so it includes philosophy, religion and life itself. For example, this is the definition of Schelling and Hegel, and so are the definitions of their German successors and French successors. On the other hand, we should admit that according to the definition of Kant and his successors, "beauty" is just a special and selfless pleasure we get. Although the concept of "beauty" looks clear, it is a pity that it is not accurate, because it has been extended to the other hand, that is, it also includes the pleasure of eating and touching soft skin, such as Qu W and Kralik.
Indeed, if we trace back to the development of the theory of "beauty" in aesthetics, we can see that from the beginning, that is, from the beginning of aesthetics, the metaphysical definition of "beauty" has an advantage. However, the closer we get to age, the more obvious the experimental definition with physiological properties in recent years, and even aestheticians like Veron and Selly have appeared who try to completely avoid the concept of "beauty". However, this aesthete has made little achievements. Most people and most artists and scholars still adhere to the definition of "beauty" in most aesthetic works, that is, to regard "beauty" as a mysterious or metaphysical thing or as a special pleasure.
Then, in our society and our times, what is the essence of the concept of "beauty" that people use to define art and stubbornly insist on?
Subjectively, we call what makes us happy "beauty". Objectively speaking, we call the absolutely perfect thing that exists outside the world "beauty". But the reason why we know the absolutely perfect things that exist in the outside world and think they are perfect is only because we get some happiness from the appearance of these absolutely perfect things, so the objective definition is just another expression of the subjective definition. In fact, these two understandings of "beauty" can be attributed to some kind of happiness we have obtained. In other words, we all think that anything that we like without arousing our desires is beautiful. In this case, art science is naturally not satisfied with defining art according to "beauty", that is, defining what makes people like, but should seek a universal definition applicable to all works of art, so as to determine whether everything belongs to the scope of art according to this definition. But readers can see from the abstract of the aesthetic theory I quoted earlier that there is no such definition. It would be clearer if he could bother to read the original works of these aesthetic collections. All attempts to define absolute "beauty" think that "beauty" is the imitation of nature, appropriateness, coordination of various parts, symmetry, unity in diversity, etc ... We get nothing more than the following two results, or there is no definition, or the definition only refers to some characteristics of a work of art, far from everything that everyone regards as art.
There is no objective definition of beauty. All existing definitions, whether metaphysical or experimental, can be reduced to subjective definitions. What's more, strange to say, they can all be summed up in one view: anything that expresses "beauty" is art, and anything that makes people like it without arousing desire is "beauty". Many aestheticians find this definition unsatisfactory and therefore unstable. In order to find a basis for this definition, they ask themselves why something is pleasant, so they turn the question of "beauty" into an interesting one, which is what hutcheson, Voltaire, Diderot and others did. However, readers can see from the aesthetic history or experience that all attempts to define interest can't get any results, we can't find a reason, and it's impossible to find a reason to explain why one person likes something and another person doesn't, and vice versa. Therefore, the whole existing aesthetics does not lie in what we can expect from this self-proclaimed "science" intellectual activity, that is, it is not to determine art or "beauty". Assuming that "beauty" is the content, essence and law of art, or determines interest, assuming that interest can solve the essence and value of artistic problems, and then according to these laws, the works that conform to it are called art, and the works that do not conform to it are discarded, but we should-admit that a certain kind of works are good because they make us feel comfortable-formulate a set of artistic theories to include all works that people in a certain circle like. There are such artistic norms. According to this standard, those works that people in our circle like, such as phidias, Sophocles, Homer, Titian, Raphael, Bach, Beethoven, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe and so on. , are recognized art, aesthetic opinions should also summarize all these works. In aesthetic literature, we can often see some opinions about the value and significance of art, which are not based on some laws that we measure the quality of a thing, but on whether it conforms to the artistic norms we have formulated. I recently read a very good book written by vogel. When discussing the moral requirements of works of art, the author bluntly pointed out that it is wrong to put forward moral requirements for art. In order to prove his point, he said for example that if we allow this requirement, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Goethe's William Maister would not meet the definition of excellent works. But since these two works are both included in the artistic model, the above requirements are wrong. Therefore, it is necessary to find a definition for art that is also applicable to the above two works. Vogel took "important" moral requirements as the basis of art to replace moral requirements.
All existing aesthetic systems are based on this meaning. People don't define real art, and then look at whether a work meets this definition to determine what is art and what is not. People just regard a series of works that people in a certain circle like for some reason as art, and come up with an artistic definition that can be applied to all these works. Not long ago, I saw an excellent example of this method in a very good book, Mott's Art History of the Nineteenth Century. When talking about the pre-Raphael school, the decadent school and the symbolism school, which have been regarded as artistic models, the author not only does not criticize this tendency, but tries his best to relax his own standards to accommodate the pre-Raphael school, the decadent school and the symbolism school. In his view, these factions are a reasonable response to naturalism extremes. No matter what kind of insanity happens in art, as long as this kind of insanity is accepted by the upper class of our society, someone will immediately invent a set of theories to defend and legalize this kind of insanity, as if in any era of history, that kind of hypocritical, ugly and absurd art was forgotten without leaving a trace, but it can be accepted and praised by people in some special circles. As for the extent to which the absurdity and ugliness of art can be achieved-especially when this art is considered to have no shortcomings, such as at present, just look at what artistic activities are in our current circle.
Therefore, the aesthetic theory based on "beauty", which is vaguely believed by ordinary people, only thinks that what we-people in a certain circle-liked in the past and now are good.
To define a human activity, we must understand its significance and function. To understand the significance and function of a human activity, we should first examine the activity itself according to its causes and consequences, not just the happiness it brings us.
If we think that the purpose of an activity is only to give us happiness, then we only define this activity according to this happiness, then this definition is obviously incorrect. This is also the case that defines art.
Just as people who think that the purpose and use of food is to give people happiness can't know the true meaning of diet, people who think that the purpose of art is to enjoy can't know the meaning and use of art, because they add this incorrect special purpose of enjoyment to artistic activities. In fact, the significance of artistic activities lies in its relationship with other life phenomena. Only when people no longer think that the purpose of eating is enjoyment will they understand that the meaning of diet lies in nourishing the body. The same is true as far as art is concerned. Only when people no longer think that the purpose of art is "beauty", that is, enjoyment, will they understand the meaning of art. Taking "beauty" or getting some happiness from art as the purpose of art will not only help us to judge what art is, but also introduce problems into a completely different field from art, that is, metaphysics, psychology, physiology and even history. Why do some people like this work but not that work, why do some people like that work, etc., which can't define art, just like discussing why one person likes pears and another likes meat, it will never help to determine the essence of nutrition. Discussing interesting problems in art, the discussion about art unconsciously boils down to interesting problems, which not only can't help us understand what this special human activity we call art is, but will make us completely confused about this problem.
Art makes millions of people work for it, sacrifice their lives and even lose their morality. What is art? On this issue, we have found some answers from various existing aesthetic theories. These answers can be summarized as follows: the purpose of art is "beauty", "beauty" is recognized through the happiness we get from it, and artistic enjoyment is a beautiful and important thing. In other words, enjoyment is good because it is enjoyment. Therefore, what is considered as the definition of art is actually not the definition of art, but only a means to justify people's sacrifices for this imaginary art, and at the same time, it is also a means to justify selfish enjoyment and immoral behavior in existing art. Therefore, strangely speaking, although there are many books on art, the correct definition of art has not been finalized. The reason is that the concept of art is based on the concept of "beauty".
What is art if we abandon the concept of "beauty" that affects the whole problem? The following is the most understandable definition of art without the concept of "beauty". Art is an activity existing in the animal kingdom. It comes from sexual desire and interest in games (Schiller, Darwin, Spencer); This activity is accompanied by a pleasant stimulus to the nervous system (Grante, Allen), which is a definition of physiology and evolution. Another definition is that art is the external expression (veron) of lines, colors, postures, sounds, words and emotions that human beings can feel. This is the definition of experiment. Celi's latest definition holds that art is "an eternal object or the result of a temporary action, which not only gives producers excitement and happiness, but also gives a certain number of viewers a pleasant feeling, regardless of personal interests obtained at that time."
Although these definitions are superior to those metaphysical definitions based on the concept of "beauty", they are still very inaccurate. The first definition, the definition of physiology and evolution, is inaccurate, because it is not about the activity itself that constitutes the essence of art, but about the origin of art. The definition based on the physiological influence on the human body is inaccurate because many other human activities can be included in this definition. The situation is the same as that of the new aesthetic theory. They advocate sewing beautiful clothes, making fragrant perfume and even cooking as art, and the definition of experiment thinks that art is the expression of emotion. This view is inaccurate, because a person can express his emotions with lines, colors, sounds and words, but his expression may not have any influence on others. At this time, this expression is not art.
The third definition put forward by Celie is not accurate, because it is "the result of those unprofitable objects that give pleasure to producers and viewers", and it can also include activities that cannot be regarded as art, such as performing tricks and gymnastics. On the contrary, many unpleasant objects, such as gloomy and cruel scenes described in poetry or performed on stage, are undoubtedly art.
All these definitions are inaccurate, because, like metaphysical definitions, they think that the purpose of art comes from the happiness of art, not the utility of art in personal and human life.
In order to define art accurately, we should first stop treating art as a tool of enjoyment and regard it as one of the conditions of human life. If we look at art in this way, we can't help but think that art is one of the means of communication between people. Every work of art can establish some connection between the receiver and the person who has created or is creating art. At the same time, it can also connect the recipient with all the people who have accepted, previously accepted or will accept the same artistic impression as him.
Language conveys people's thoughts and experiences, and it is a means to unite people, so is the role of art, but this way of communication of art is different from language. Language is used by people to convey ideas, while art is used by people to convey feelings.
The basis of artistic activities is that when a person accepts the feelings of others with hearing or vision, he can experience the same feelings as those experienced by emotional expressors.
For a simple example, one person laughs, and another person is happy to hear this laughter; A person cries, and the person who hears the crying is also sad; One person is angry, and the other is excited when he is angry. A person expresses vigorous vigor and courage with his own actions and voices, or conversely, expresses sadness or calmness with his own actions and voices, and conveys this mood to others. A person's pain, when he expresses his pain by moaning or twitching, will be passed on to others. When a person expresses his love, worship, fear and respect for something, someone or some phenomenon, others will also feel love, worship, fear or respect for that thing, person or phenomenon when they are infected.
The foundation of artistic activities is that people can be infected by the sensibility of others.
If a person directly infects another person or other people with his own expression or voice when experiencing a certain emotion, it will cause others to yawn when he wants to yawn, cause others to laugh or cry when he can't help laughing or crying for something, or make others feel pain when he is in pain. This is not art.
Art begins when a person awakens his inner feelings in order to convey them to others and expresses them with some external symbols.
Give a simple example. For example, a boy who was frightened when he met a wolf told the story to arouse his feelings in others. So he described his own experience, the situation before the encounter, his environment, the forest, his relaxed and happy mood, and then described the image of the wolf, its movements, his distance from the wolf and so on. All this-if the boy recounts the feelings he has experienced, so as to infect the audience and let the audience know what the boy has experienced-is art. If a boy has never seen a wolf, but he is often afraid of it, he wants to arouse his fear in other people's hearts, so he makes up that he met a wolf and tells it so vividly that it also arouses the feelings that the boy experienced when he met a wolf in the audience's mind, then this is also the case. If a person experiences painful horror or enjoys sweetness in reality or imagination, and he displays these feelings on canvas or marble, so that others are infected by these feelings, then it is also art. If a person experiences or imagines feelings of happiness, joy, melancholy, disappointment, pleasure and depression, and the mutual transformation of these feelings, he expresses these feelings with his voice, so that the audience can be infected by these feelings and experience them like him, then it is also art.
Surgery.
All kinds of feelings-strong or weak, meaningful or meaningless, bad or good-are the objects of art as long as they infect readers, audiences and listeners. The feelings expressed in drama, obedience to fate or God, or the ecstasy of lovers described in novels, or the lewdness depicted in pictures, or the hearty feelings expressed in solemn marches in music, or the joy caused by dancing, or the humor caused by ridiculous anecdotes, or the tranquility conveyed by landscape paintings or lullabies describing the evening scene-these are all arts.
As long as the feelings experienced by the author can infect the audience or the audience, this is art.
Arouse the feelings you have experienced in your heart. After arousing this feeling, convey this feeling with actions, lines, colors, sounds and images expressed in language, so that others can feel the same feeling. -It's an art activity. Art is a kind of human activity, in which a person consciously uses some external symbols to convey his feelings to others, and others can be infected by these feelings and experience them.
Art is not the mysterious idea, beauty or God's expression as metaphysical scholars say, nor is it a game in which people spend extra energy, nor is it the result of expressing emotions through external signs, nor is it the result of pleasant things. The most important thing is not enjoyment, but an indispensable means of communication in life and in the process of happiness for individuals and all mankind. It unites people with the same feelings.
Because people can understand the thoughts expressed in language, anyone can know what all mankind has done for him in the field of thought, can participate in other people's activities by understanding other people's thoughts now, and can convey the thoughts obtained from others and produced in their own hearts to their peers and younger generations through this ability; Similarly, because people can be infected by the feelings of others through art, he can appreciate everything that human beings have experienced in the emotional field before, the feelings that his peers are experiencing and the feelings that others experienced thousands of years ago, and he can convey his feelings to others.
If people can't understand all the thoughts of their predecessors, can't express them in words, and can't convey their thoughts to others, then people are like animals or Caseberhouse.
If people don't have another ability-the ability to be infected by art, then they are likely to be more savage, and mainly, they will be more loose and hostile.
Therefore, artistic activity is a very important activity, as important and as common as language activity.
Language affects us not only through sermons, speeches and books, but also through all the languages we use to convey our thoughts and experiences to each other. The same is true of art. Art in a broad sense permeates our whole life, but we just call some forms of this art art-art in a narrow sense.
We are used to understanding the word "art" as what we hear and see in theaters, concerts and exhibitions, as well as architecture, sculpture, poetry and novels ... these are just a small part of the art we use to communicate in our lives. The whole life of mankind is full of all kinds of works of art-from lullabies, jokes, grimaces, house decorations, clothes and utensils to church services and triumphal parades. These are all artistic activities. So what we mean by art in a narrow sense does not mean the whole activity of human beings to convey emotions, but only the part that is separated from the whole activity and given special significance by us for some reason.
People always pay special attention to the activities that can express their feelings from people's religious consciousness, and call this small part of the whole art real art.
This is how ancient people-Socrates, Plato and Aristotle understood art, and so did Hebrew prophets and ancient Christians. Muslims used to and still do understand art, and so do religious people now.
Several human teachers, such as Plato, in his Republic, some original Christians, serious Muslims and Buddhists often deny any art.
Modern view holds that any kind of art is good as long as it can give people happiness. However, people who hold the opposite view of art think that art and language are different, and language can be ignored, but art can make people involuntarily infected, which is very dangerous. If all arts are abolished, the loss suffered by mankind is far less than allowing any art to exist.
These people who deny all arts are obviously wrong, because they deny an undeniable thing-one of the indispensable means of communication, without which human beings cannot survive. However, as long as people in this civilized society, this circle and this era in Europe serve beauty, in other words, as long as they give people happiness, all arts are allowed. It is also wrong for them to do so.
Once upon a time, people were worried that there might be something corrupt in works of art, so they simply banned all works. But now people protect all art just because they are afraid of losing some happiness that art gives people. I think the latter mistake is much more serious and dangerous than the former one.
(1) Caseberhouse, the "abandoned child of Nuremberg", was found in the Nuremberg market on May 23rd, 1828, and looked like he was sixteen years old. He seldom talks and knows almost nothing about ordinary things. Later, he told people that he grew up in the basement, and only one person went to see him, but he didn't see this person often. -translated from the English version of Maud.