The realm of human knowing labeled science is concerned with recording what will continue to happen if certain conditions remain constant. We can duplicate experiments from 100 years ago and expect the same results. As long as the earth keeps on going the same way, or close enough so we don't notice the difference, the communication we call science will enable a duplication of results and a continuation of prosperity. When I consider art and aesthetic expression, however, I see no such guarantee of connection across time. Acts of sacrifice deemed necessary and good by past peoples are atrocious by today's standards. An artist, then, need not claim a necessary continuity with the past. Just because I use the same word as someone 100 years ago, we are not necessarily having the same experience, nor are we seeing the same phenomena. To put it succinctly, the aesthetic possibility is open. I cannot see any way of proving that beauty is constant between myself and Aristotle. When a human being dies, it's beauty goes with it. When a human being is born, there is a new factor within the world. This is why the study of the expression of beauty (the humanities) is a constant and ongoing endeavor.
But should the artist have a conscience? Is there a responsibility inherent in the ability to transform the world into a beautiful expression? I would like to read about the ethics of art if anyone has suggestions...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This point reminds me again that the world doesn't need artists who are geniuses, trickin everyone all the heck out - it needs artists who are wise. A wise man who is an artist, which is part of what it means to be a wise man, will know his responsibility.
Exactly. Tricky art is getting annoying to me. Oh wow, you titillated me. Boy that was hard wasn't it.
Post a Comment